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 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
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.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
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.
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.
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