Appeal 3365807
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
a first floor rear extension.
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
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
[address] is made up of predominantly terraced dwellings. The appeal site is a mid-terraced property set in a group of eight. The properties within the same collection are similar in their appearance and to the rear they benefit from four groups of attractive gable ends and bay windows at first floor level. That being said, most of the properties on [address] appear to have gabled rear elevations that are more or less in line with one another at first floor level. All of these factors combine to create a pleasant sense of consistency and originality that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.
The proposal would introduce an extension to the rear at first floor level that would extend further back than the first floors of the closest dwellings. It would protrude from the existing gable end and would remove the bay window. It would therefore distort the symmetry between the appeal site and its counterpart and interrupt the cohesive rhythm of the terrace as a whole. The proposal would have a contrived appearance that would negatively draw the eye from the rear gardens of the closest properties.
The proposed development would therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2018 which are concerned with development being well integrated into its surroundings amongst other things.
Section 06
Other Matters
I have not been provided with any specific history of similar developments close to the appeal site and I did not witness any examples of such. They are therefore an exception to the norm that do not sufficiently influence the character as I have identified it to the point the appeal scheme would be acceptable. Appropriate materials to match the dwelling or otherwise would be welcome but would not overcome the issues I have identified with the design of the appeal scheme.
Section 07
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
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
- 3365807
- Application reference
- 0587/25
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Redbridge
- Planning authority code
- E09000026
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
- 1. Refused planning permission
- 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
- 15 May 2025
- Valid date
- 15 May 2025
- Start date
- 6 June 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 April 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
- 76699
- 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