Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3280123

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

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

change of materials (bricks to white render), new non-openable window, installation of roller shutters in each window, installation of PV panels in two locations, replacement of existing fence with new fence.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. Section 03

    Preliminary Matters

    Since the application was determined, the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) has been revised in July 2021. However, I do not consider that the changes directly affect the appeal proposal before me, but all references are to the July 2021 version.

    The application forms indicated that the works had been completed by the date of the application submission, although I noted at the site visit that the PV panels had not been installed.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposals, and in particular the change of materials from brick to render and the installation of roller shutters to each window, on the character and appearance of the property and the local area.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The appeal property is a detached property on the west side of [address], within a predominantly residential area. [name] noted at my site visit that in the wider context around Ickenham, there are some examples of rendered properties, the street scene in [address] is strikingly and consistently characterised by brick-built properties with vertical tiled detailing to front gables and bays under tiled roofs. I did not see, and my attention has not been drawn, to any other properties with windows with integral external roller shutter blinds.

    I have been provided with photographs of the existing property before the works were undertaken and the palette of materials appeared to match those found on adjoining properties and generally within the street. Whilst the new finishes to the appeal property have, taken on their own, been completed to a high standard, they significantly and materially alter the existing character and appearance of the property. Given the significant change in appearance with its white render, the property now appears visually obtrusive and unduly prominent in the street scene; it detracts from the coherent character and appearance of the surrounding properties.

    At the time of my site visit, the shutters were not down on the windows facing the street, but the Appellant has included photographs showing some of these, part down. I have no doubt that whether partly or fully down, the shutters materially and adversely affect the character and appearance of the property, by creating a harsh and incongruous appearance to the property. As a result, the property appears visually discordant and detracts from the street scene.

    I therefore conclude that the works undertaken, and in particular the change of materials from brick to render and the installation of roller shutters to each window, adversely affect and seriously harm the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area. This conflicts with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] (2012), Policies DMHB11, DMHB12 and DMHD1 of the Local Plan: [name] – Development Management Policies (2020) and Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and the Framework, in particular Section 12, all of which seek for a high standard of design which respects the local context.

    I have sympathy with the Appellant’s position and the reasons why the works were undertaken, including the objectives to improve the energy efficiency of the house. I have taken all these matters into account, but they do not outweigh the harm I have concluded to the character and appearance of the house and to the local area.

    For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including in representations in so far as they raise relevant planning matters, 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 257No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    24 September 2021Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    31 August 2021 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3280123
Application reference
12943/APP/2021/589
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
London Borough of Hillingdon
Planning authority code
E09000017

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
No
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
Dismissed
Decision category
Dismissed
Received date
2 August 2021
Valid date
2 August 2021
Start date
9 August 2021
Planning authority decision date
24 May 2021
Appeal decision date
24 September 2021

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
3733
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:25
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21