Appeal 3303094
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 single storey side/rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
An application1 for prior approval, for a single storey rear extension, was refused in October 2021.
The Council confirmed in December 2021 that a different application2 for prior approval, for a single storey rear extension, did not require prior approval. The Council is satisfied that the proposal the subject of this appeal is acceptable in respect of impacts on local character and residential amenity, but not in respect of flood risk.
The appeal property is located within a critical drainage area, in [name] 3a. A flood risk assessment submitted by the appellants confirms this.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is whether the proposal has satisfactorily addressed the issue of flood risk.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling with a single storey outbuilding to the rear. The dwelling is set back from the road behind a front garden and driveway and has a long garden to the rear. 1 Ref: P/3713/21/PRIOR. 2 Ref: P/4500/21/PRIOR.
The surrounding area is residential and is characterised by the presence of two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings set back from the road behind gardens and/or parking areas and with longer gardens to the rear. During my site visit, I observed the area to appear green and spacious due in part to the presence of trees, hedgerows, gardens and grass verges.
As noted above, the proposed development is located in a critical drainage area. [name] note that the appellants consider the risk of flooding to be very low, Policy DM9 of the Development Management Plan (DMP) 2013 states that proposals requiring a flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be resilient to all relevant sources of flooding including surface water. The policy goes on to note that proposals which fail to make appropriate provision for flood risk mitigation, or which would increase the risk or consequences of flooding, will be refused.
The proposal would result in an increased development footprint and consequently, it would present an increased risk of flooding within an area at the highest risk of flooding. However, whilst I have considered the flood risk assessment submitted in support of the proposal, it is not apparent to me, due to the absence of clear and relevant detailed information in respect of compensatory flood storage measures, how the proposed development meets the requirements of the DMP. 10.Consequently, given the limited evidence before me, I am unable to conclude that the proposal satisfactorily addresses flood risk and find it contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policies SI12 and SI13; and to [name] DM9 and DM10, which together amongst other things, seek to prevent development from exacerbating flood risk.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 September 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3303094
- Application reference
- P/4850/21
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Harrow
- Planning authority code
- E09000015
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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 1
- 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
- 14 July 2022
- Valid date
- 14 July 2022
- Start date
- 28 July 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 June 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 12 October 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
- 21905
- 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