Appeal 3369809
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
4 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 single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at [site address] , [site address] , Essex, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application ref 25/00715/FULH, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, 190/01/C, 190/02/C, 190/03/C [name], 190/04/C [name], 190/05/C & 190/06/C [name].
Section 03
Main issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposed rear extension would have a depth that matches an existing rear projection to the house, and so would be 5.7m from the rear elevation of the property. The extension would not be full width, being set in 0.6m from the boundary with the adjoining house at No. 30. The height of the extension continues that of the existing rear projection, but it reduces in height at the part adjacent to No. 30.
This siting of the extension – away from the boundary with No. 30 – when combined with the reduced height next to that boundary mean the scale and any visual intrusion of the extension would be minimised. The extension would have limited impact upon the outlook of the adjoining occupiers, as the massing of the extension would be largely retained behind the existing boundary fence. The outlook from No. 30 is towards their garden, and there would not be an undue sense of enclosure to the adjoining property. Thus, there would not be a harmful effect on living conditions.
As the extension would not go beyond the existing projection to the house as it adjoins the other adjoining house of No. 28, and would be the same height, there would not be any effect on the occupiers of that property.
On the main issue it is concluded the proposed development would not be harmful to the living conditions of adjoining occupiers. Therefore, the proposal would accord with Policies KP2 and CP4 of the [site address] [name] (2007), and Policies DM1 and DM3 of the [site address] Development Management Document (2015) which, amongst other matters, require all development to be of high quality and maintain the amenities of residential areas and the local community.
Planning permission is granted. I have attached the standard conditions requiring matching materials and for works to be undertaken in accordance with the approved drawings, to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.
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 97No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 October 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 October 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3369809
- Application reference
- 25/00715/FULH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Southend-on-Sea City Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000033
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
- 0
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 23 July 2025
- Valid date
- 23 July 2025
- Start date
- 12 August 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 July 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 28 October 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
- 78676
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21