Appeal 3284150
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
described as the “conversion of roof space of single storey rear element to use as a gym to include 6 dormers”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The Officer’s report details that consent has previously been granted for 3 dormer windows to the southern elevation. Nonetheless the description set out on the application form clearly refers to 6 dormers and the submitted plans do not refer to the consented 3 dormers. I have therefore determined the appeal on that basis.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property.
Section 05
Reasons
Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - [name] (November
(the HLP), [name] 11 and DMHB 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - Development Management Policies (January 2020) (the DMP), amongst other matters, seeks development that is of a high design quality and that contributes positively to the surrounding context. Detailed guidance regarding roof extensions is set out in Policy DMHD 1 of the DMP and details that, amongst other matters, “roof extensions should be located on the rear elevation only” and be subservient to the scale of the existing roof.
The single storey building to which the proposed dormers would be added is situated to the rear of the appeal property and projects parallel to the adjacent [address]. Consequently, the 3 proposed dormer windows to the southern elevation would be screened from the road and largely only visible from view points to the rear of the appeal property.
I saw at the site visit that the northern elevation of the existing building, while referred to as the rear elevation on the submitted plans, would nonetheless face on to [address]. The existing established trees to this boundary would provide some screening but the dormers would otherwise be visible from the street.
Furthermore, the submitted plans show that, as a result of the combination of the size, scale and number of the flat roofed dormers in proportion to the modest scale of the existing single storey building, the appeal scheme would fail to appear as subordinate to the existing property.
The appellant details that “the size and spacing of dormers have been designed to provide adequate separation between the dormers so that not to create one single bulk dormer”. Nonetheless, the submitted plans show that the dormers would dominate the existing roof structure.
For the reasons detailed above, I find that the appeal scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area including the appeal property contrary to Policy BE1 of the HLP and [name] 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD1 of the DMP.
Section 06
Conclusion
There are no material considerations that indicate the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore 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 536No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 4 February 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 25 January 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3284150
- Application reference
- 21231/APP/2021/2152
- 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
- 50 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
- 3 October 2021
- Valid date
- 3 October 2021
- Start date
- 12 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 August 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 4 February 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
- 10035
- 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