Appeal 3280879
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
[name]
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a two-storey end of row house within a short block of houses, and is the last dwelling along this side of [address]. The character of the area is residential, made up from a mixture of bungalows and houses although the blocks of houses on this side share similar characteristics.
The appeal property benefits from a large side garden and the main entrance door is positioned on the side elevation. This would be relocated to the front elevation and would retain the symmetry with other houses seen within close range.
The side extension would appear as an uncharacteristically wide extension when viewed from the front elevation, in relation to the host dwelling. Its excessive width would appear out of proportion with the host dwelling. Even with the use of matching materials and fenestration detail, it would not harmonise with the host dwelling or appear as a subordinate addition. Thus, it would appear detrimentally harmful to the host dwelling and to the character and appearance of the local area to which it is visually experienced.
There may be new houses built in spaces between dwellings, however that is not the same circumstances as the proposal before me. Further, the appellant has brought to my attention another appeal decision. However, this relates to a different street and is for a two storey extension and includes a first floor set back. Even if it extends more than half the width of the dwelling, it is not directly comparable to the proposal before me. In any case, each application is considered on its own individual merits.
Irrespective of no objections received to the proposal from neighbouring residents or that is would lead to no harm arising to highway safety, these are neutral matters that neither weighs for or against the proposal.
It has been brought to my attention by the appellant that the proposal is required due to their specific medical needs. However, no details of such have been forthcoming to allow me to consider this further.
[name] have found the proposed extension would result in harm arising to the character and appearance of the local area, it would thus conflict with the objectives of Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - [name] 2012 and [name] 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - Development Management Policies 2020 in their combined design aims.
Section 05
Conclusion
Due to its harmful effect on the character and appearance of the local area, as the proposal would lead to conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.
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 296No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 December 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 30 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3280879
- Application reference
- 55304/APP/2021/1822
- 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
- 62 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
- 12 August 2021
- Valid date
- 15 August 2021
- Start date
- 19 August 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 June 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 16 December 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
- 7757
- 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