Appeal 3374840
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
the erection of a side extension to create new ground floor habitable rooms and first floor bedrooms.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Planning Issues
The main issue is the effect the proposed development would have on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local street scene in the context of the surrounding Cuckoo Estate Conservation Area (CA). There is also an issue of privacy at the neighbouring property, No [address].
Section 04
Character and Appearance
The proposed extension would be set back from the front building line and down from the roof ridge so as to appear duly subordinate to its host, whilst also being of similar style, construction and finish. It would leave a garden area of reasonable size within the triangular corner plot. I therefore regard the inherent design of the extension to be acceptable in itself.
Importantly however, the surrounding area of the [name] is characterised by regular brick-built terraces of hipped roof houses, invariably with distinct gaps between them, despite a range of side extensions to some of the original end dwellings.
The terrace which includes the appeal property is no exception to this development pattern. It is situated at the end of a short cul-de-sac off the main part of [address], with other terraces in a rectangular layout around a central green. From there, and from the Road itself, the end terrace it is visually separated from the neighbouring terraces by clear gaps between the appeal dwelling at No107 and No105 and between Nos 113 and 115. This regular layout and development pattern is an important feature of the urban grain of the CA.
Due to the width and bulk of the proposed extension to No 107, the important gap separating it from No105 would be closed when seen from most surrounding viewpoints, and from within the street scene especially. Moreover, the terrace as a whole would appear unbalanced.
I consider that this effect would harm both the character and appearance of the CA as a whole, failing in the duty of preservation set by planning law. In terms of national policy this would result in less than substantial harm to the CA as a designated heritage asset, without compensatory public benefits.
Section 05
Privacy
There is also concern that the front windows of the side extension to No 107 would face the side of No105. However, the Council concedes, and I agree, that the privacy of No 105 could be safeguarded by a condition requiring obscure glazing to the front bathroom and study windows of the extension.
Section 06
Conclusions
However, the adverse impact of the extension on the [name] would place the development into unacceptable conflict with adopted Ealing Development Management Policies 7.4 and 7C, as well as Policies D1, D4 and HC1 of the London Plan. Together, and consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, these policies require new development to complement the building pattern and retain the characteristic features of conservation areas by high quality design.
I therefore conclude that this 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 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
- 3374840
- Application reference
- 251702HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Ealing
- Planning authority code
- E09000009
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
- 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
- 21 October 2025
- Valid date
- 22 October 2025
- Start date
- 22 October 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 3 October 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
- 80462
- 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