Appeal 3363758
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
8 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
described as a single storey rear extension with glass lantern roof above.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
[name] and Main Issue
The description above is taken from the application form and varies from the decision notice which includes more specific information about the prior approval requirements. This has not changed anything fundamental nor prejudiced the ability of any party to make their case in respect of the appeal scheme. The main issue for which is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] (No. 258) with particular regard to outlook and light.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal site is an end terrace dwelling within a residential area. The property benefits from a garden to the rear that is in line with the gardens of the neighbours. The boundary between the appeal site and No. 258 is made up of fencing and similar height shrubs.
The proposal would introduce a rear extension almost immediately alongside the shared boundary with No. 258 that would extend further out than the neighbouring conservatory and considerably higher than the existing boundary fencing. The looming effect of the height, proximity and run of the extension would appear overbearing to users of the neighbouring conservatory and the outlook experienced from within. The scale of the proposed development would thus garner an unacceptable sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No.258. The position and length of the extension would also inevitably block some light to the conservatory and kitchen of No. 258 being situated on the side where most light enters the rooms. The proposal would therefore cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the adjoining dwelling contrary to the amenity considerations of this part of the GPDO.
Section 06
[name]
I have had regard to the other examples provided but assessment under the GPDO for the purposes of this main issue and the specific context of the appeal site does not allow one to weigh in other examples of similar development elsewhere.
Section 07
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above, the proposal would not accord with the prior approval matters set out in the above section of the GPDO. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.
The Council has referred to Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies DMD1 and DMD5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2024 as well as their [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document. Whist the issues they address issues related to those considered above and the appeal scheme would, consequently, conflict with their aims, as a submission under the prior approval regime, the development plan is not determinative.
Section 08
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 1895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 September 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 August 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3363758
- Application reference
- 25/00067/PRIEXT
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Council
- Planning authority code
- E09000002
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 3. Refused prior approval of permitted development rights
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 8 April 2025
- Valid date
- 8 April 2025
- Start date
- 6 May 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 27 February 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 22 September 2025
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 76682
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21