Appeal 6001493
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
5 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
introduction of Juliet balcony to rear first floor (replacing window with doors) & alteration to existing single storey roof to allow for the Juliet balcony.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to privacy.
Section 04
Reasons
No. [site address] is a mid‐terrace two‐storey dwelling, in a cul-de-sac. The proposal would replace a first windows which faces the rear gardens of the terrace with French doors and a balcony.
My attention has been drawn to a similar submission approved by the Council in July 2025. However, none of those examples have the site-specific relationship between the proposal and neighbouring properties as in the appeal the before me, which I have determined on its own planning merits.
Whilst the proposal would not be visible within the street scene, I observed a network of footpaths to the rear of the appeal site. The proposal would be visible from the wider public realm. The proposed first‐floor French doors would facilitate occupation of the threshold space and would afford more direct and uninterrupted views into the rear garden areas of neighbouring properties than the existing first-floor rear window.
The proposal would also materially increase the perception of overlooking when compared to that arising from a conventional first‐floor window, which would generally be more passive and far less conspicuous.
I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to privacy. The development therefore contrary to Policy PP27 of the Poole Local Plan (2018), which, amongst other things, seeks to prevent development that would result in harmful impacts on the amenity of local residents.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above the appeal should be 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 4659No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 January 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 January 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6001493
- Application reference
- P/25/03198/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
- Planning authority code
- E06000058
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
- Householder
- 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
- 97 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 6 November 2025
- Valid date
- 7 November 2025
- Start date
- 7 November 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 November 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 27 January 2026
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
- 83368
- 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