Appeal 3336201
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
5 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
additional light rear addition to the existing single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matters
The extension the subject of this appeal has been constructed in part and is referred to below as the development.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling located in a residential area.
The surrounding area is characterised by the presence of semi-detached dwellings set back from the road behind gardens and/or parking areas and with longer gardens to the rear. The setting-back of dwellings and the presence of gardens and trees provides for a green and spacious local character.
During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings in the area have been altered and/or extended and that such changes generally appear in keeping with the host property and local character.
The development the subject of this appeal comprises a ground floor rear extension to an existing rear extension. The development extends across the full width of the appeal property and as an extension to an existing extension, it projects a considerable distance to the rear of the appeal dwelling and significantly beyond the neighbouring ground floor rear extension to Number 4.
I find that the above results in a development that appears large and cumbersome. The development’s width and considerable projection results in an extension of such overall scale as to unduly dominate the appearance of and fail to appear subordinate to, the host property.
Furthermore, as a result of it extending well beyond the rear elevation of the adjacent rear extension at No 4, the development fails to appear in harmony with the appeal dwelling’s attached neighbour. 10.I find that the harm arising as a result of the above is exacerbated as a result of the design of the development. Seen together with the pre-existing rear extension, the development results in a rear extension with a part flat roof and a part sloping roof and this results in an awkward relationship, whereby the roof of the development visually jars with that of the pre-existing rear extension. 11.In addition to all of the above, during my site visit it was apparent to me that no similar developments are visible within the area surrounding the development and that consequently, the development draws attention to itself as an incongruous feature. 12.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the development harms the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policy D3; to Local Plan1 Policy BE1; and to Development Management2 Policies DMHB11 and DMHD1, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 4 April 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 6 March 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3336201
- Application reference
- 1383/APP/2023/2294
- 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
- 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
- 2 January 2024
- Valid date
- 14 January 2024
- Start date
- 24 January 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 10 October 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 4 April 2024
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
- 48993
- 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