Appeal 3280474
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
erection of a canopy on front elevation of property.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
At the time of my site visit, I saw that a canopy had been installed. However, it differs from the proposal and for clarity, I have assessed the proposal based on the plans submitted with the application.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property and other semi-detached dwellings located in this part of the street have two storey gable projections to the front. Although many have been altered, including the host dwelling, the appeal property and others, retain a rhythm of consistency in the street scene.
The proposed canopy would extend past the two-storey front projection of the original dwelling and due to this depth, in combination with the diameter of the pillars and bulk of the roof structure, it would appear as an unduly dominant feature on the front. In such a prominent location on a corner site, this striking feature would, in my view, unacceptably erode the architectural composition of the property as part of a pair.
The site lies outside of any Conservation Area, and I accept that on corner properties there are sometimes opportunities to create larger dwellings, in part due to the increased spaciousness. Moreover, the proposal would be subservient to the overall scale and massing of the building, and I recognise that the appellant has sought to reduce the size from the existing canopy. However, I am required to assess the proposal before me on its own merits and whilst the proposal would be an improvement from the existing canopy in situ, these matters or the support from neighbours do not overcome my concerns regarding the design of the proposal before me.
There are other examples of canopies within the wider area. However, these are very much the minority and there are none in this part of the street scene. Moreover, those that I saw, served to confirm that the design of canopies can lead to unduly dominant additions which can harmfully alter the nature of the relationship between pairs of houses.
I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with the requirements of Policies 7B and 7.4 of the Council’s Development Management Development Plan Document (2013) (DPD), Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) (LP), and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework. These stipulate, amongst other things, that development should compliment the existing built areas street scene, building pattern, scale, materials and detailing.
In conclusion, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, 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 1160No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 21 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 March 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3280474
- Application reference
- 213335HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Ealing
- Planning authority code
- E09000009
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 3 m²
- 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
- 6 August 2021
- Valid date
- 18 August 2021
- Start date
- 14 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 2 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 21 March 2022
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
- 12592
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21