Appeal 3314816
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
Front porch extension
Section 02
Procedural Matter
The description of development was changed following submission of the application. I have utilised the amended description, which better describes the development proposed.
Section 03
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the ‘Front porch extension’ at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 221888HH, dated 04 May 2022, subject to the following
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue for the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Section 05
Character and Appearance
The appeal site is a semi-detached post-war dwelling of modest proportions and a simple utilitarian design. The site is located within a predominantly residential planned estate comprising of similar styles and types of dwellings, as well as modest sized apartment buildings of similar overall height and style to the houses in the vicinity. The prevailing scale, pattern and design of the estate creates a sense of place and uniformity, although the architectural features of the dwellings are unremarkable. The site is located at a curve in the road, so the house is set back from the road across a slightly deeper front garden than that of the surrounding properties on the same side of the road.
The appeal scheme seeks to introduce a single storey front porch extension to the front elevation. The width of the porch extension would be less than half the width of the original dwelling; which would be in proportion to the scale of the front elevation and its simple detailing. The depth of the porch would be modest; incorporating a front door and narrow window only. The height of the porch would be marginally higher than that of the existing small canopy porch, and it would not interfere the existing elevational arrangement, albeit it is regrettable that the front door would be situated in the flank of the porch rather than facing the street. As such, the porch would be proportionate to the scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and its simple form would integrate well its design.
Whilst the prevailing predominant porch type is a small above-door canopy, there are numerous examples of porch extensions of varied designs and scales in the immediate vicinity of the site. Indeed, the porch would be viewed within the context of a lean-to flank extension at a neighbouring property. For this reason, combined with the design and proportions of the porch, the scheme would be in keeping the local character and would not erode the sense of uniformity in the planned estate. Moreover, the site is not within a conservation area and the existing porches are a simple unobtrusive feature which make little contribution to the character of the area to justify their preservation.
Despite the location of the site at a curve in the road, the dwelling is no more prominent than the immediately surrounding dwellings on the same side of the road. Whilst the porch would create a modest front projection towards the road, the existing building line and pattern of development would not be adversely affected due to the combination of the modest depth of the porch, the orientation of the dwelling and its slightly deeper front garden. As such, the proposed porch would not be unduly prominent or dominant in the street scene.
For these reasons, the appeal scheme complies with policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan, adopted 2021 and policies 7B and 7.4 of the Ealing Development Management DPD, adopted 2013, as well as the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies seek, amongst other things, a design led approach to high quality design; having regard to contextual form, layout, pattern, scale, materials and detailing which complements the existing building and character of the area.
Section 06
Conditions
The Council has requested three conditions requiring that the development is commenced within three years, is constructed in accordance with the approved plans and in materials which match the existing building. I consider these conditions to be reasonable and justified in accordance with the legal and policy tests for conditions; to ensure that the development takes place in accordance with the proposed plans, in a timely manner and in a way that integrates it with the existing building and character of the area.
Section 07
Conclusion
For these reasons, the appeal scheme accords with the relevant policies of the development plan and no material considerations indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
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 254No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 May 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 24 March 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3314816
- Application reference
- 221888HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Ealing
- Planning authority code
- E09000009
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
- Unknown
- 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
- 4 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
- 16 January 2023
- Valid date
- 16 January 2023
- Start date
- 27 January 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 October 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 12 May 2023
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
- 32530
- 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