Appeal 6007508
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
proposed side garage 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 upon the living conditions of the occupants of Number 9 [site address] (No.9) with particular regard to light and outlook.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The appeal property is large and detached with a garden to the front and rear. The dwelling is located between other residential properties. The existing attached garage is positioned closely alongside the side elevation of No.9. There is a ground floor window in the neighbouring wall that faces towards the appeal site. The properties are separated by close boarded fencing.
The proposal would include alterations to extend the garage further towards No.9 with an increased height. Although the garage would remain as single storey, it would have a substantial ridge height.
Light is already restricted into the window of the side elevation of No.9 and the outlook is mainly towards the boundary fencing. That being said, there is some visual alleviation provided for the occupants of No.9 due to the current height of the garage and its slightly set back position from the fencing which allows a degree of light to enter through the window. The light contributes to the outlook experienced from the window for the occupants of No.9. The proposal would introduce an even closer and taller solid block that would create a boxing in effect around the window for the occupants of No.9. It would therefore worsen the relationship that is already very close.
The proposal would thus harm the living conditions of the occupants of No. 9 and would conflict with Policies DS1 & DS5 of the [site address] Local Plan 2003 which are concerned with development being sympathetic to neighbours amongst other things.
Section 06
Other Matters
Of the examples provided, I have not been given any context relating to the neighbouring dwellings and therefore they are not easily comparable to the appeal scheme. I agree that the proposal would be subordinate to the main dwelling, but this is not a contentious matter in the appeal. I cannot be certain which room the window in the side elevation of No.9 serves. The Council suggest it is a kitchen. If it is the case that the doors to the rear serve the same room, that does not negate the need for light to and outlook from the side elevation window which is quite deep into the building itself.
Section 07
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not 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
- 11 June 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 May 2026 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6007508
- Application reference
- PA/2025/1398
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- North Lincolnshire Council
- Planning authority code
- E06000013
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
- 365 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
- 1 April 2026
- Valid date
- 8 April 2026
- Start date
- 14 April 2026
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 January 2026
- Appeal decision date
- 11 June 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
- 90275
- 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