Appeal 3348797
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
construction of a ground floor rear glazed link extension, the siting of air conditioning units to the flank wall and a front porch at [site address] , Hounslow [postcode] .
Section 02
Reasons
The link constructed between the host property and the outbuilding to the rear is no wider or taller than the existing rear flat-roofed extension. With fully glazed sides and roof with frames that match the windows in the host property, the link is an innocuous addition which is barely identifiable from public or private spaces. Whilst providing additional floorspace, the usability of the link as living accommodation is restricted by its width and depth. It has a functionality more similar to that of a corridor and, in so doing, maximises the use of the outbuilding. Whether the outbuilding has been constructed under permitted development rights or does not benefit from planning permission is not a matter for this decision.
The porch constructed to the front of the host property projects further than the frontage of the bay window and is of a width that encroaches on it, contrary to the guidance set out in the Council’s Residential Extension Guidelines SPG 1. However, its design and use of matching materials to other porches in the street combine to create an addition that does not dominate the character of the host property or the street scene. 1 Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Appeal Decisions APP/F5540/D/24/3348797, APP/F5540/D/24/3350093
As the air conditioning (a/c) units are sited towards the rear of the property on the side elevation, they are not readily identifiable from the pavement or road and, therefore, do not have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the street scene. Given other dwellings nearby have a/c units installed they are not alien features in the area.
The development does not harm the character and appearance of the area and accords with the policies cited in the decision notice. Appeal A issue – the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of [address] (No.12) with particular reference to noise.
The nearest opening of the neighbouring property is a first-floor window in the rear elevation. This serves a bathroom. Other windows in the side elevation of No.12 are associated with the hall, stairs and landing. Therefore, the nearest opening serving a habitable room is located on the first floor, closer to the party wall between No.12 and [address].
During my site visit one of the a/c units was operational and was barely audible when I stood in the passageway between No.12 and the host property, and significantly quieter and a more consistent sound than that of aircraft taking off or landing intermittently at [name] nearby. Based on these observations and combined with the distance between this noise source and the nearest window serving a habitable room at No.12, unacceptable disturbance to neighbouring occupiers would not occur when the a/c units are in operation. The lack of a noise assessment does not preclude such a conclusion being reached.
The development does not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of No.12, with particular reference to noise, and accords with the policies cited in the decision notice. Appeal B issue – the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area
The ridge height of the pitched roof of the first-floor rear extension has been constructed at a higher level than previously approved2. Nonetheless, the eaves of the modified roof align with those of the host property and the new ridgeline matches the height of the rear dormer. Although the resultant slope of the roof is steeper than previously approved, the lower ridgeline level, consistent eaves and use of matching materials ensures the extension is subordinate to the host property.
The development does not harm the character and appearance of the area and accords with the policies cited in the decision notice.
Section 03
Conditions
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: Unnumbered 1:1250 Location Plan; Unnumbered 1:500 Site Plan; 202 – [name]; 201 rev B – [name] and Elevations. Reason: to provide certainty. 2 Council Ref: 00266/14/P2, dated 15 September 2021 Appeal Decisions APP/F5540/D/24/3348797, APP/F5540/D/24/3350093 Appeal B:
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: Unnumbered 1:1250 Location Plan; Unnumbered 1:500 Site Plan; 202 – [name]; 301 rev A – [name]; 201 rev A – [name] and Elevations. Reason: to provide certainty.
Section 04
Conclusion
The development complies with the development plan as a whole and nothing indicates a decision should be made otherwise.
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 3913No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 11 April 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 April 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3348797
- Application reference
- P/2023/3768
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Hounslow
- Planning authority code
- E09000018
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
- Lead
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
- 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 25 July 2024
- Valid date
- 25 July 2024
- Start date
- 30 August 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 3 May 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 11 April 2025
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
- 67889
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21