Appeal 3297796
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
described as “1st floor side extension”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in respect of light and outlook.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposal would introduce built development within close proximity to the first floor side window of [address] (No 4). Observations at my site visit, as well as evidence submitted by the appellant, confirms that the extension would not be directly adjacent to this first floor window of No 4. Nevertheless, the positioning and bulk of the extension given its close proximity to this window of No 4 would be an overbearing structure that would have a detrimental effect on outlook from the room of this first floor side window.
The appellant indicates that this first floor side window of No 4 is a secondary window to the bedroom. This matter does not alter my findings above though, as this first floor side window is a large window and the proposal would compromise outlook from the window that would adversely effect living conditions of occupiers of No 4.
Accordingly, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 4 with respect to outlook. The proposal would be contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] – [name] and [name] 11 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] – Development Management Policies which seeks development to protect the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential properties, and ensure there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers.
Due to the position and orientation of the proposed extension, I do not find that the proposal would compromise living conditions of the occupiers of No 4 with regards to light. This matter however does not outweigh the harm I have identified above in respect of outlook.
It is acknowledged that the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 05
Conclusion
The proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in respect of light and on the character and appearance of the area. However, these matters would not outweigh the harm I have identified with regards to the effects on the living conditions of occupiers of No 4 with regards to outlook.
The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which outweigh this finding.
Therefore, for the reasons given above, 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 173No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 June 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3297796
- Application reference
- 46647/APP/2021/4542
- 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
- 9 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
- 28 April 2022
- Valid date
- 28 April 2022
- Start date
- 4 May 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 February 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 20 June 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
- 16651
- 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