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 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
single storey side extension.
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
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.
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.
Section 05
Main Issue
The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address].
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.
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.
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