Appeal 3284450
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
a first-floor side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
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 04
Reasons
Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] – [name] (the HLP) and [name] 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part two – Development Management Policies (the DMP), amongst other matters, seeks that new development be of high-quality design that incorporates well into the surrounding context.
The appeal scheme proposes a first-floor side extension above the existing single storey extension to the side of the property. As a result of the location of the appeal property on a corner of the street, the proposed extension would occupy a prominent position within the street that is otherwise characterised by the regular pattern of semi-detached properties and the spaces between the properties.
The submitted plans show that while the existing ground floor extension is situated immediately adjacent to the boundary with [address], the proposed first floor extension would be set off the boundary at the front of the property by, as detailed by the [name] of appeal, 1.2m. [name] note that as a result of the angle of the boundary in relation to the appeal property, the rear of the proposed extension is chamfered and situated immediately adjacent to the boundary.
I saw at the site visit that the attached property, [address], has not been subject to the extent of alterations and extensions that the appeal property has. Consequently, the addition of a further extension, in particular at first floor level and in a prominent position, would unbalance the pair of semi-detached properties, harming the character and appearance of the area.
I note that the proposed extension is set back from the front elevation of the property and, to the front of the proposed extension, off the boundary with the neighbouring property. Nonetheless, as a result of the constraints of the site and the proximity of the boundary, the proposed extension is shown as being of a somewhat contrived appearance with a chamfered rear portion and a complex roof arrangement.
As a result of the proximity of the proposed extension to the boundary and therefore the adjacent property, the appeal scheme would result in an erosion of the gap that separates the neighbouring properties, a characteristic of the area.
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 DMHD 1 of the DMP.
Section 05
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
- 7 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
- 3284450
- Application reference
- 61591/APP/2021/2493
- 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
- 18 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
- 7 October 2021
- Valid date
- 10 October 2021
- Start date
- 18 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 18 August 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 7 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
- 10122
- 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