Appeal 3346390
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
erection of single storey rear extension following demolition of extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The Council raises no objection in respect of the impact of the proposed extension on the living conditions of adjacent occupiers. There are no reasons to disagree. The main issue in this appeal therefore is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
Notwithstanding that an existing outside toilet and garden structure would be removed, the proposed 6m deep extension would significantly increase the footprint of the appeal property. It would extend further into the garden than the two neighbouring extensions which the Council indicates are broadly in line with the 3.6m depth permitted by Policy DMHD 1. There are no other, deeper extensions in the visual context of the appeal site. In my judgment the proposed extension would appear incongruous and overly dominant to the host property and would out of character with similar development in the surrounding area.
It is also relevant to this appeal that an Article 4 Direction prevents the erection of 6m deep extensions under ‘permitted development’ rights and restricts ‘larger home extensions’ to 4m in depth. There is therefore no ‘fallback position’ of constructing a 6m deep extension as ‘permitted development’.
The appellant refers to planning permissions granted by the Council for 6m deep extensions at other properties. [name] do not have the full details of these cases, it is unlikely that the built context of the example sites is identical to the appeal proposal which has been determined on its own merits and in the context of its unique surroundings.
I conclude that the depth and resulting bulk of the proposed extension would appear as a disproportionate and incongruous addition that would fail to respect the design and size of the original dwelling. The extension would harm the character and appearance of the host property. Due to its size, it would also fail to respect the prevailing character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to the design policies of Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - [name] (November 2012) and [name] 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - Development Management Policies (January 2020). There would also be conflict with the design aspirations of Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
For the reasons set out above 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 322No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 20 September 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 31 August 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3346390
- Application reference
- 78553/APP/2024/283
- 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
- 31 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
- 14 June 2024
- Valid date
- 14 June 2024
- Start date
- 10 July 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 25 March 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 20 September 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
- No
- 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
- 57369
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21