Appeal 3284237
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 extension and rear dormer window.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
I saw at the site visit that the appeal scheme has already been constructed on site and that consent has been sought retrospectively.
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
The acceptability of the proposed single storey rear extension is not at dispute between the parties and based on the evidence before me I have no substantive reason to conclude otherwise.
I saw at the site visit that the dormer extension, being of a considerable size and scale in itself and in proportion to the appeal property, dominates the rear roof and is a prominent and incongruous addition to the otherwise modest and well-proportioned property. In particular, the appeal plans show that the extension occupies almost the full width of the roof and projects above the original ridgeline of the property.
Furthermore, the fenestration of the dormer windows fails to respond to the existing rear elevation of the property, specifically the windows are not aligned with those below and the size and shape of the windows are not in keeping with the rest of the property.
At the site visit I saw, and the parties have referred to, a number of other dormer roof extensions in the area, the size and style of which varies. The presence of the extensions do not persuade me as to the acceptability of the appeal scheme before me.
It has been suggested by the appellant that a ‘fallback’ position exists were if “60mm lower in overall height it would be deemed Permitted Development”. In this instance the ‘fallback’ position would represent an improvement to the scale and design of the dormer extension in comparison to the appeal scheme before me. Therefore, I have accorded this fall-back position limited weight.
For the reasons detailed above I find that the appeal scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property. Thus the proposals are contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - [name] (November 2012) and [name] 11 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - Development Management Policies (January
that amongst other matters seeks development that is of a high design quality that responds to its context.
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
- 3284237
- Application reference
- 2900/APP/2021/1574
- 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
- 20 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
- 4 October 2021
- Valid date
- 5 October 2021
- Start date
- 18 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 September 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
- 10037
- 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