Appeal 3301983
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
construction of a two storey side extension, part two storey, part single storey rear extension and loft dormer conversion to include a hip to
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is one half of a pair of semi-detached houses situated in a prominent position at the corner of [address] and [address] (A437). Both houses have hipped roofs and retain their original form and symmetry.
Whilst the side extension would be set back at first floor level, this would not prevent the hip-to-gable alteration from substantially altering the form of the host property and unbalancing the semi-detached pair. In addition, the rear dormer would subsume the majority of the roofspace at the rear of the property. Its size and box-like form would appear excessively large and out of keeping with the existing building. The result would be a scale and design of development which does not integrate sensitively with the host building. Moreover, these harmful effects would be readily apparent in open views from the south and west.
The neighbouring pair of semi-detached houses (Nos 9 and 11) have been extended on both sides, but this is with matching hipped roof extensions that respect the original form and symmetry of the pair, so they are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme. [address] has also been referred to by the appellant, but that too is of a different design and is not within the immediate context of the appeal site. In any event, I have considered the appeal on its own merits and I have found that the proposal would be harmful for its own specific reasons.
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area, and so, conflicts with Policies DMHD1, DMHB11 and DMHB12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020); Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 – [name] (2012); and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021). Taken together, these require that new development, including extensions, respects the design and architectural composition of the original building; harmonises with the local context; and ensures that there is no adverse cumulative impact on the character, appearance or quality of the existing street or wider area.
Section 05
Other Matters
The neighbour at No 7 raised concerns in relation to loss of privacy and light. These matters did not feature in the Council’s refusal reasons and as I am dismissing the appeal for other substantive reasons, it has not been necessary to address these matters any further in this Decision.
Section 06
Conclusion
Given the above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no considerations to outweigh this conflict. Accordingly, 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 597No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 November 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 25 October 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3301983
- Application reference
- 29834/APP/2022/792
- 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
- 64 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 28 June 2022
- Valid date
- 6 July 2022
- Start date
- 26 July 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 3 May 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 11 November 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
- No
- 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
- 23407
- 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