Appeal 3348084
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
described on the application form as “Replacement of all existing single-glazed timber sash and casement windows (front and rear), and single- glazed timber door to the rear elevation with double-glazed uPVC sash and casement windows and double-glazed uPVC door”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed in so far as the proposal relates the replacement of the existing single-glazed timber sash windows at the front of the property with new double-glazed uPVC sash windows.
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted in so far as the proposal relates to the works at the rear comprising replacement of single-glazed timber sash and casement windows and single-glazed timber door with double-glazed uPVC sash and casement windows and a double-glazed uPVC door at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2022/01637/FUL, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the information submitted with the planning application in so far as it relates to the development approved.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property occupies the upper parts of a converted 2-storey terraced house which forms part of a handsome terrace of Edwardian brick-fronted dwellings, most of which retain timber sash windows in their street frontages. Many, including the appeal property, also retain the original ornate arrangement of glazing bars within the upper sashes. These windows make a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the houses and are a key and important feature of [address] and the surrounding streets.
The proposal would include the replacement of the 3 first floor front windows with a set of double-glazed uPVC sash windows. The illustrative material provided indicates that the upper parts of the windows would be divided into 6 panes and the lower part into 2. This arrangement would appear incongruous in the context of the neighbouring houses and, in combination with the use of uPVC, would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
For these reasons the proposal to install double-glazed uPVC sash replacement windows at the front of the property fails to accord with Policies DC1, DC4 and DC6 of the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (2018) which, amongst other matters, require good design that is compatible with existing development.
The proposal also includes the replacement of the 2 sash windows, a casement window and a glazed door at the rear of the appeal property. The illustrative material provided suggests that the replacement sash windows would to all intents and purposes replicate the existing upper level windows and in this particular location the use of uPVC would not be incompatible with the surroundings. The existing glazed door and associated casement window are not original features and they detract from the appearance of the property. The replacement with a similar door and window would not therefore result in harm.
For these reasons I am satisfied that the proposed double-glazed uPVC sash and casement replacement windows at the rear of the property, and the replacement double-glazed uPVC door would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and its surroundings. These aspects of the proposal therefore accord with the aforementioned policies. As these elements are clearly physically and functionally severable from the proposed windows at the front a split decision can be issued allowing the changes at the rear only.
Section 05
Conditions
I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time limit condition, and for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, a condition requiring the approved development to be carried out in accordance with the material submitted with the planning application is imposed.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail in respect of the replacement of the windows at the front of the property and should succeed in respect of the replacement of the windows and glazed door to the rear.
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 246No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 16 October 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 September 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3348084
- Application reference
- 2022/01637/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
- Planning authority code
- E09000013
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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 1
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- 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
- Split Decision
- Decision category
- Split decision
- Received date
- 14 July 2024
- Valid date
- 14 July 2024
- Start date
- 26 July 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 24 April 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 16 October 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
- 58544
- 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