Appeal 3315447
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
a part first floor rear extension.
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 property and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The properties within the small cul de sac vary in style and form and have an irregular and staggered alignment. No. [site address] is a detached property with a catslide roof to the front and has had the addition of a box roof dormer and single-storey flat roof extension across the full width to the rear. The neighbouring property, No.7, is set significantly further back with the entirety of the side elevation to the appeal property visible from the road.
The extension would sit above part of the single-storey extension. It would not extend the full depth, but the pitched roof would project over part of the existing dormer with the ridge positioned just below the bottom of the windows. This would create a cluttered and inharmonious arrangement which together with the existing alterations would not reflect the appearance of the original property and consume the rear elevation.
Whilst the development is to the rear, the bulk of the projection and the relationship with the dormer window would be seen in views of the side elevation from [address]. The rear elevation is also visible from [address] where the first-floor extension would be an intrusive and incongruous feature, further drawing attention to the property and the rear composition which would be out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development.
I thereby find that the development would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the original dwelling and the surrounding area contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - [name] (November 2012), [name] 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] – Development Management Policies (January 2020), Policies D4 and D8 of the London Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework, which together promote good design that harmonises with the local context, and appropriately integrates with the public realm.
Section 05
Other Matters
Interested parties have raised matters relating to other alterations to the property, in particular the dormer window, which was erected under permitted development rights, and a side window. [name] understand the frustration with the various planning applications and works to the property my considerations are restricted to the proposed development before me. The Council has not raised any concerns in relation to the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and I have no reason to disagree with that assessment. Notwithstanding this, I have found against the proposal on the
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised the appeal is 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 362No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 27 July 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 July 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3315447
- Application reference
- 41060/APP/2022/3074
- 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
- 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
- 18 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
- 25 January 2023
- Valid date
- 25 January 2023
- Start date
- 24 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 December 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 27 July 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
- 36236
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21