Appeal 3285472
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
two storey front extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The appeal is made together with Number [address] and that decision is determined under separate cover.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Section 05
Reasons
The character of the area is residential to this side of Park Road and overlooks a busy dual carriageway and undeveloped open space beyond. The appeal property is semi-detached to No 245. Both properties share the same design characteristics and are symmetrical in appearance. Whilst there is substantial contrast to the dwellings along this side of Park Road, this pair of semi’s is paired with the houses of 247 and [address]. These semi’s also retain significant symmetry, and as a set, these houses contributes positively to the character and appearance of the street scene.
The proposal is an in-fill to the front elevation of the dwelling in order to extend the hall with an enlarged bedroom above.
The pair of semi’s is closely associated with the adjacent pair of semi’s that also shares the same characteristics and symmetry. By extending the house at appeal before me, would significantly distort the character of this set of houses. This would be further reinforced by the proposed roof. The main roof of all four houses is hipped, with the projecting front elements also hipped making a characteristic design feature. The proposed roof configuration would be at significant odds with these distinctive roof features.
The houses are clearly visible within the street scene. Even if both occupants would be prepared to undertake work at the same time to retain the symmetry of the pair of houses, the imbalance that would ensue between the semi-detached houses and the adjacent pair at 247-249 would lead to adverse harm arising to the character and appearance of the group, and consequently the street scene.
Therefore, to conclude, the proposal would not respect the design features of the original dwelling and lead to harm arising to the distinctive character of the houses as a group of semi-detached houses, and to the street scene. This would be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] (2012) and [name] 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Development Management Policies 2020 in their combined design aims.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposed development 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
- 11 February 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 February 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3285472
- Application reference
- 63115/APP/2021/2214
- 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
- 16 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
- 22 October 2021
- Valid date
- 25 October 2021
- Start date
- 2 November 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 September 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 11 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
- 10481
- 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