Appeal 3324913
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
part single-storey, part two-storey side/rear wrap around extension; first floor rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The Council changed the description of development from that stated on the application form in the interests of clarity. I consider that the description accurately describes the appeal scheme and accordingly I have adopted an amended description in the heading above.
Since the submission of the appeal the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) has been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) (the Framework). However, in relation to this appeal the aims of both sets of policies are similar. No party would be prejudiced or caused any injustice by me proceeding with the appeal in light of this change in policy.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The site is a traditional two-storey end terraced property, located on the corner of [address] and [address] within a predominantly residential area. Property form and design have an architectural rhythm in the area.
The proposed development would be in line with the existing first floor bedroom above the ground floor entrance hall of the property projecting to the side boundary of the plot and extending two-storey beyond the rear of the existing property, wrapping around to the rear. The proposed extension would be substantial and prominent on this corner plot.
I observed during my site visit that No. [address] has been extended to the front, side and rear, however the works to that property differ from the proposal before me. No. 428 is set back at the front, the two-storey side extension extends to the rear of the existing property, with a single storey rear extension projecting beyond the rear of the property. In this case the extensions are subordinate to the original property and do not appear out of keeping with the area.
I find that the proposed development would be an unsympathetic and incongruous addition to the property and the surrounding area in general.
I conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. There is conflict Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013) which amongst other things seek to ensure developments deliver good design and complement the building in terms of materials and design.
There is conflict with the Framework which seeks amongst other things to ensure developments are of good design. There is also conflict with Supplementary Planning Document 4 – [name] which amongst other things seeks to ensure developments are designed to harmonise with the original building and are subordinate.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons I conclude that this 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 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 December 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 November 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3324913
- Application reference
- PP-12033541
- 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
- 77 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
- 28 June 2023
- Valid date
- 16 July 2023
- Start date
- 21 September 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 May 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 12 December 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
- 43394
- 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