Appeal 3303935
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
10 No. solar Panels on top of Flat roof - to an existing dwelling-house. [name] is [600mm x 1800mm]. Flat roof area = 3.6m x 4.5m = 16.20 sq. m.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
At the time of my site visit, solar panels which appeared to broadly accord with those on the submitted plans were in place at the site. For the avoidance of doubt my consideration has been made on the basis of the plans.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the solar panels on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is a residential dwelling which sits within the Barnhill Estate Area of Special Local Character (ASLC). The immediate area is formed in the main of modest semi-detached and terraced residential dwellings.
The properties are generally formed with hipped or gable roofs with ridgelines that are only exceeded in height by expected features such as chimney stacks and television aerials.
The solar panels combine to form a bulky feature which projects well above the main ridgeline of the dwelling. They are visible in views up and down the street, where they form a discordant feature in those views by reason of their prominent projection above the ridgeline.
The solar panels are therefore detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and the ASLC.
The proposal subsequently conflicts with Policy BE 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 [name] (2012), policies DMHB 5, DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) and policies D4 and D8 of the London Plan (2021).
Amongst other things these policies seek well designed proposals that are appropriate to the character of an area. Amongst other matters, the supporting text to Policy DMHD 1 is clear that solar panels should not be seen from a public place.
Section 06
Other Matters
There will be some environmental benefits associated with the solar panels in terms of the renewable energy that they are likely to be producing. Such matters are supported at a national level as well as within the development plan. However, the benefits are only likely be very small given the scale of the proposal and I therefore afford this matter limited weight.
I accept there are technical reasons which explain how the solar panels have come to be positioned in the manner in which they have at the site. This does not however provide overriding justification for the scheme and I afford this matter limited weight.
I do not have many details relating to the other solar panel schemes that have been brought to my attention by the appellant. In any event, it is not clear that those schemes are also within an ASLC, particularly those schemes that share the same characteristics as that before me. I therefore afford these examples limited weight.
Section 07
Planning Balance and Conclusion
There is no indication that the decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that 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 427No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 21 December 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 12 December 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3303935
- Application reference
- 18069/APP/2021/2342
- 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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 26 July 2022
- Valid date
- 26 July 2022
- Start date
- 28 July 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 May 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 21 December 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
- 25622
- 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