Appeal 3350588
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
7 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 as: ‘Raising of piers 4-11 & infilling with black open grills along with sliding security gates.’
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
At my site visit I saw that development has commenced. However, my decision is based on the information provided.
Since the appeal was lodged, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been updated. However, I am satisfied that there are no changes of any consequence for the main issue in this appeal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
Policy DMHD 1 section F (ii) of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 – Development Management Policies January 2020 (the DMP) states ‘the design, materials and height of any front boundary must be in keeping with the character of the area to ensure harmonisation with the existing street scene’.
The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling prominently sited on a corner. Dwellings in the area are set back from the road behind front gardens, some of which provide off-street parking. With the exception of some high close-boarded fences, boundary treatments are either open to the street, or they consist of low brick walls, softened by planting, with higher brick walls on flank elevations. This arrangement contributes to a generally open character in the area.
The proposal seeks to increase the height of the piers of the low brick boundary wall, infill the gaps between the piers with black grills and install sliding security gates. Whilst the piers would be constructed in brick, the height of the piers would be considerably higher than other front brick boundary walls in the area. The appellant describes the grills as ‘open’, such that they would allow views into and out of the appeal site. But this is not what is shown by the drawings provided to describe the appeal development. These drawings show the sections between the piers would be solid, as would the proposed gates. Overall, the proposed arrangement would be uncharacteristic and incongruous.
I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would not comply with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 – [name] 2012, [name] 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the DMP or Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021. Taken together, these seek that development is designed to the highest standard and is in-keeping with the existing character of the area.
Section 06
Other Matters
My attention has been drawn to a previous planning permission, Ref 629/APP/2023/3636, described by the appellant as a fall-back position. However, that permission is for a considerably shorter front boundary treatment and so it does not justify the appeal development before me.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above the appeal should be 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 4557No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 24 February 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 13 February 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3350588
- Application reference
- 629/APP/2024/965
- 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
- 22 August 2024
- Valid date
- 22 August 2024
- Start date
- 12 September 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 18 June 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 24 February 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
- 65080
- 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