Appeal 3372665
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
the retention of a single storey rear extension and front boundary wall with vehicle and pedestrian gates.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the retention of a single-storey rear extension and front boundary wall with vehicle and pedestrian gates at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/1849, and [name] 2025/02 to 07 inclusive dated 10 June 2025.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The retrospective nature the proposal has no effect on the manner in which the appeal is assessed.
Section 04
[name]
The main issues relate to the design and scale of the disputed single-storey rear extension and its effect on residential amenity, as well the implications of the 1.5m front boundary wall and gates for pedestrian and road safety.
Section 05
[name]
The extension exceeds the 6m rear projection limit of permitted development by 3.7m. However, it is of lightweight, fully glazed construction and is set in from the side boundaries of the generous rear garden.
In the circumstances I do not consider that the extension conflicts significantly with design and form of the host dwelling or its neighbours.
Nor do I consider that this lightweight and transparent structure would dominate or overshadow either of the adjacent dwellings, both of which enjoy equally generous back gardens affording a degree of spaciousness that would not be compromised by the appeal development.
Despite its departure from adopted design guidance regarding the design and dimensions of house extensions, I do not consider that the rear extension undermines the aims of Policies CC1-2 or SC7 of the adopted Hounslow Local Plan (HLP) with respect to its design in context, its inherent function or its the effect on the surrounding area.
Section 06
[name] and Gates
There are other examples of relatively high front walls and gates in the vicinity of the appeal site, such that I do not consider that the wall and gates disputed in this appeal look out of place in terms of the street scene.
I consider that, within this essentially residential street, the width of the footway is sufficient to provide reasonable visibility, to both drivers of cars leaving the appeal property and any passing pedestrians, to avoid unacceptably dangerous conflict.
As with the rear extension, I do not consider that any degree of departure of the front wall and gates from adopted dimensional guidelines in this case undermines the aims of HLP Policy EC2 or London Plan Policy T4 regarding road safety or the sustainability of the transport system.
Section 07
Conclusion
For these reasons I conclude that the appeal should be allowed on the basis of the submitted plans, but no further conditions are necessary as both elements of the appeal development are already complete.
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 1576No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 26 November 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 November 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3372665
- Application reference
- P/2025/1849
- 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
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 326 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
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 7 September 2025
- Valid date
- 7 September 2025
- Start date
- 9 September 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 11 August 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 26 November 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
- 80449
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21