Appeal 3294276
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
7 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 “demolition of existing conservatory and outbuilding and erection of single storey rear extension”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the “demolition of existing conservatory and outbuilding and erection of single storey rear extension” at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23697/APP/2021/4278, dated 19 November 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
the materials used in the exterior of the single storey rear extension hereby approved shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse.
Section 03
Applications for costs
The appellant has made an application for full costs from the London Borough of Hillingdon. This application is the subject of a separate decision.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 9a and [address] with particular regards to outlook, daylight and privacy.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site consists of the appeal property [site address] and the properties referred to as 9a and 9b. I saw at the site visit that these properties are occupied by family members and are of a limited size and provide only limited facilities such that they can only be occupied as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling, No9. Furthermore, based on the evidence before me it is clear that these properties were granted planning permission subject to conditions that restrict occupation to purposes ancillary to the residential use of No9. As such these properties do not form separate dwellings.
The appeal scheme proposes the replacement of the existing conservatory with a single storey rear extension. The appellant details that the proposed extension is approximately 0.1m deeper and 0.8m wider than the existing structure. The increased width would bring it closer to the existing rear extensions, in particular a bedroom window.
Nonetheless, on the basis that the proposed extension will only be marginally closer to this room, that is used as a bedroom and does not form a separate dwelling, and that the appeal scheme would be of specific benefit to the occupier of the bedroom, I am satisfied that the living conditions of the occupiers of the properties on the site will not be materially harmed by the appeal scheme.
As such, the appeal scheme Is not contrary to [name] 11 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - Development Management Policies (2020) that amongst other matters seek to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
Section 06
Conditions
In the interests of clarity, I have included a condition relating to the implementation of the development and in the interests of the appearance of the area I have included a condition relating to the materials to be used in the extension of the appeal scheme.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should 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.
Costs Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 536No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 September 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 August 2022 (page 1)
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 536No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 September 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 August 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3294276
- Application reference
- 23697/APP/2021/4278
- 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
- 14 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 4 March 2022
- Valid date
- 4 March 2022
- Start date
- 21 July 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 February 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 6 September 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
- Yes
- 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
- 20290
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21