Appeal 3332004
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
4 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
single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Reasons
The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, street scene and wider area.
[address] is a residential street of mostly semi-detached, two storey dwellings set behind small front gardens, many of which have been converted to off street parking. Many of the dwellings on the street have been subject to some extension and many have substantial outbuildings at the end of their rear gardens, which are generally fairly narrow, but long.
The appeal property is a semi-detached, two storey dwelling with a shared side driveway (shared with No 10) which provides access to a garage. At the site visit I noticed the single storey extension that had been constructed at adjoining neighbouring property No 6. From the council’s submissions, that extension extends to approximately 3.6m and the extension at neighbour No 10 is similar. I was able to see from the submitted plans that the appeal proposals would extend further into the rear garden than the single storey extensions serving No’s 6 and 10.
Policy BE1 ([name]) of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - [name] (November 2012) (LP1) seeks development that improves and maintains the quality of the built environment.
Policy DMHB 11 (Design of New Development) of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - Development Management Policies (January 2020) (LP2) requires that all new development (including domestic extensions) is designed to harmonise with its local context.
Policy DMHB 12 (Streets and Public Realm) of LP2 requires development to be integrated into its surroundings.
DMHD 1 (Alterations and Extensions to [name]) of LP2 requires that all domestic extensions do not have an adverse cumulative impact of the proposal on the character, appearance or quality of the existing street or wider area, nor adjacent dwellings and that the proposals are subordinate to the host dwelling.
The proposals would extend 6m into the rear garden from the back wall of the host dwelling, well beyond those of neighbouring properties and would, in my view, dwarf the host dwelling and appear disproportionate and incongruous. I consider the proposed extension would therefore result harm to the character of the host dwelling as well as the wider area.
I have noted the desires of the appellant to create more living space on the ground floor, but this alone is not a reason to justify an extension of this size.
Given the scale and massing of the proposals I consider this would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, and the host dwelling contrary to policies BE1 of the LP2 and DMHB 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD1 of the LP2.
Section 04
Conclusions
For the reasons given and having considered all matters raised, I conclude that 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 2526No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 December 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 November 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3332004
- Application reference
- 28798/APP/2023/1896
- 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
- 27 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
- No
- 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 October 2023
- Valid date
- 25 October 2023
- Start date
- 7 November 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 15 August 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 13 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
- 43568
- 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