Appeal 3280762
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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • The living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] with particular reference to outlook.
Section 04
Character and appearance
The appeal property is located at the end of a street characterised by two-storey terraced housing with single storey outbuildings toward the end of the rear gardens.
The proposed alterations would create an additional floor and, although the design has sought to minimise the scale with a flat roof, it would nonetheless, fail to harmonise with the established pattern of outbuildings to the rear.
The additional bulk and massing from the proposed first floor, on an already large garage, would be an unduly dominant addition which would be prominent from [address] and the neighbouring properties.
Whilst the architectural detailing would be in keeping with the surrounding built form and it would be smaller than the surrounding houses, this does not overcome my concerns regarding its scale and massing as an outbuilding to the rear.
I therefore find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would conflict with the requirements of policies 1.1 and 1.2 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2012) (CS), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Council’s Development Management Development Plan (2013) (DMDP) and Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) (LP). These policies stipulate, amongst other things, that development in Ealing’s existing built areas should complement their street sequence, building pattern, scale, materials and detailing.
Section 05
Living conditions
The existing garage lies adjacent to the rear garden of No [address] (No 155). The proposal would be a dominant addition from No 155 due to the length of the appeal building, the proposed height and particularly close physical relationship to No 155’s rear elevation and garden. This dominance would create an unduly hemmed in feeling and sense of enclosure, which would not be overcome by the flat roof design.
I therefore find that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 155 with particular reference to outlook. The proposal would therefore conflict with the requirements of Policy 1.1 (g) of the CS, Policy 7B of the DMDP and Policy D6 of the LP. These stipulate, amongst other things, that new development must achieve a high standard of amenity for users and for adjacent uses.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above, 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
- 3280762
- Application reference
- 212634HH
- 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
- 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
- 11 August 2021
- Valid date
- 25 August 2021
- Start date
- 20 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 May 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
- 12593
- 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