Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 6000075

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 works

One-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

single storey side extension.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for single storey side extension at [site address] , Charlton, Greenwich [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/3127/HD, and subject to the following

  2. Section 03

    conditions:

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: JND/1407/14, JND/1407/10, JND/1407/11, JND/1407/12, JND/1407/13, and JND/1407/15.

  3. Section 04

    Preliminary Matters

    On 12 December 2024 the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework. Its content relative to the main issue of the appeal is largely unchanged. It has not therefore been necessary to give the parties opportunity to comment on the revisions.

  4. Section 05

    Main Issue

    The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address].

  5. Section 06

    Reasons

    The proposal would extend the dwelling to the side of the existing two storey rear outrigger, to occupy the existing space between that and the side boundary to No. [address]. The space beside the outrigger is already narrow and constrained by the two storey outrigger and three storey form of the main part of the dwelling. The arrangement is mirrored at the back of No. 61. The small yard areas are north facing, and thus daylight is already considerably restricted, and it was clear at my visit that these spaces are not the most attractive or usable areas of the gardens.

    Unlike the appeal dwelling, the rear outrigger of No. 61 does not have a side facing bay window. The only window opening in this area is at the back of the main three storey part of the dwelling, which faces towards the rear garden. For the reasons given, this area is already constrained by the scale of the surrounding buildings. Both dwellings benefit from a generous rear garden. Beyond the outrigger these open to the full width of the plots and achieve a good level of sunlight and daylight at the far end, providing a pleasant outlook.

    The proposal would create a solid side boundary that would face the neighbour and be higher than the existing fence. Whilst its presence would be obvious and there would be an impact, the view down the garden from the neighbour’s existing rear window would be little altered, and owing to the orientation of the dwellings, the level of daylight and direct sunlight that would reach the area close to the back of the dwelling would be largely unaffected by the proposal. Furthermore, the neighbouring dwelling is higher than the appeal dwelling, which would lessen its impact.

    The extension would extend further than the distance referred to in the Council’s Design Guide1, however this is a largely irrelevant point as this relates to a rear extension, whereas the proposal is for an extension to the side of the existing rear outrigger.

    In summary, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 61. It would accord with Policy D3 of The London Plan 2021, and Policy DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan Core Strategy 2014. Together these seek to ensure that development proposals achieve environments that are comfortable and inviting for people to use and avoid an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers.

  6. Section 07

    Conditions

    No conditions have been suggested by the Council. I have considered what conditions would be appropriate in the context of the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed a condition to specify the approved plans to give certainty. The proposal is otherwise modest and the plans are clearly annotated in respect of materials, to the extent that no further conditions are necessary.

  7. Section 08

    Conclusion

    For the reasons above, the appeal should be allowed.

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 77No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    28 March 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    18 March 2025 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
6000075
Application reference
24/3127/HD
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
Royal Borough of Greenwich
Planning authority code
E09000011

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
Not recorded
Appeal reason
refused
Type detail
No Application Type Assocaited
Jurisdiction
No Jurisdiction Associated
Link status
Not recorded

Site and development

Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.

Site area
0 hectares
Floor space
7 m²
Number of residences
Not recorded
Site in Green Belt
No
Agricultural holding
Not recorded
Affects setting of a listed building
Yes
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
13 January 2025
Valid date
13 January 2025
Start date
16 January 2025
Planning authority decision date
25 November 2024
Appeal decision date
28 March 2025

Case administration

Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.

Redetermined
Not recorded
Bespoke
Not recorded
Date recovered
Not recorded
Date not recovered or derecovered
Not recorded
Call-in date
Not recorded
Costs applied for
No
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
Back Office
Dataset status
Current release
Catalogue record ID
67125
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