Appeal 3280754
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
6 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
a single storey rear and side extension with associated internal alterations.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property, the terrace of which it is part and thereby the street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property, [site address] , is a two-storey end of terrace dwelling, located on a prominent corner plot. The terrace comprises a traditional parade of shops, several of which including, number 305, have been converted into two-storey houses.
A single storey, flat roof addition is proposed between the side of the house as extended and the road boundary to [name]. The overall width of the extension, as calculated by the Council, would be about 6.2 metres. This would be greater than the width of the original host property.
The side wall of the extension facing the street would run along the side boundary parallel to the road edge and therefore at an angle to the house. As there would be no inset or other modulation the side wall of the house as extended would appear very bland. In my judgment, due to the overall width of the extension and its proposed relationship with the street it would appear as a bland, dominant and incongruous addition harmful to the both the host property and the wider area.
For these reasons I conclude, in respect of the main issue, that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host property and wider street scene within [name]. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CC1, CC2 and SC7 of The London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015 – 2030 (Adopted 15 September 2015), the London Borough of [name] ([name] 2003) and National Planning Policy Framework as they relate to, amongst other things, the quality of development and the need to complement the original building, harmonise with adjoining properties and maintain the character of the general street scene.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has drawn to my attention a number of residential extensions in the area, a couple of which appear to be corner plots with additions built up to or close to the boundary as proposed here. Whatever the background to those cases, their existence, even on nearby sites, is not an appropriate justification for permitting another here.
In reaching my determination I have had regard to the need for affordable larger family homes and the improvement of the existing housing stock. I also accept that the proposal would enhance the living accommodation and the quality of life for the appellant and his family and note that there were no third-party objections to the proposal. However, none of these matters outweigh my findings on the main issues.
Section 06
Conclusions
For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that 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 1184No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 8 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 October 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
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
- Child
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
- 1
- 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
- 11 August 2021
- Valid date
- 2 September 2021
- Start date
- 20 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 5 August 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 8 November 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
- 5727
- 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