London Borough of Hillingdon appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Hillingdon?
See how bulk, roof design and frontage form affected the selected Hillingdon appeal examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 312 of 389
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 124
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 183
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 295
- of 312 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Hillingdon LPA (51.541513, −0.445636). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Hillingdon appeal findings
Hillingdon examples: bulk, roofs and front extensions
The selected examples are more dismissal-heavy than the matched local set, and some dismissals state only their conclusion.
Counted against appeals
Bulk and frontage concerns
Garden building bulk dominated
A large outbuilding’s bulk, pitched roof and canopy were found disproportionate to the house and too dominant in its rear garden.
Front extension worsened discordance
The Inspector found the front extension architecturally weak and likely to accentuate discordance already present at the house.
Some extracts state harm only
They conclude that the proposal would harm area character and appearance, without explaining the detailed design assessment in the displayed passage.
Helped or needed
Roof height and crown-roof scale
Roof scale suited nearby houses
Nearby roof sizes and styles varied. The new roof’s height matched the existing house, and its crown-roof elements were not overly large or prominent from public views.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the building is disproportionate to the house?
- Does it identify height, roof bulk or visibility from nearby gardens?
- Does it explain why nearby roofs or extensions are not comparable?
The allowed comparison concerns roof work, while some dismissed extracts give conclusions without the full design reasoning. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
4 July 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
two-storey side and rear extension; raising of main roof ridge; and alteration to windows on front elevation.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The new roof would be comparable to the height of the existing, and although of much greater bulk, would not be harmful in the context of the varied roof sizes and styles of the surrounding houses. Concerns are raised over the use of crown roofs, but these elements would not be overly large, or prominent from the public realm, and in any event are not an uncharacteristic feature of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
21 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
No verified development description was available for this example.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I conclude, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with Policies D3 and D4 of The London Plan (2021), Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - [name] (2012), and [name] 11 and DMHD 1 of the DMP which seek high quality design, require that the form and layout of a development enhance and harmonise with local context, that there is no adverse cumulative impact of development proposals on the character, appearance or quality of the existing street or wider area and set out specific requirements in terms of two-storey side extensions, including in respect of dwellings on corner plots.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
14 August 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a new detached garage.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
This proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - [name] (November 2012) and [name] 11, DMHB 12 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: [name] - Development Management Policies (January 2020).
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
10 July 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Rear garden annexe to provide extra garden and pantry storage and entertainment space’.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The evidence before me indicates that the internal floor space of the outbuilding would be 48sq m. The supporting text to Policy DMHD 2 Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 – Development Management Policies (January 2020) (LPP2) indicates that outbuildings should be no greater than [address] metres. [name] accept that this figure is a general guide, when combined with its height, substantial pitched roof and lean-to canopy, the outbuilding would not appear proportionate to the host dwelling. Even accounting for the use of high quality materials, this would not be sufficient to assimilate the outbuilding’s substantial bulk and mass which would have undue dominance within the rear garden environment. Due to its height significantly above boundary fencing and walls, and even accounting for vegetation in gardens, the proposal would be unduly prominent when experienced from the nearest neighbouring windows and gardens.
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
1 October 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Single storey front extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I recognise that there are examples of front extensions at other properties in the area that occupy the full width of the frontages to those properties. However, I consider those extensions to be well designed with good proportions that do not undermine the integrity of the original house designs. By contrast, the appeal proposal would appear as an architecturally weak element and given the already elongated appearance of the present single storey extension, would further accentuate the discordance that already exists. It would therefore have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property, which in turn would result in unacceptable harm to the character of the surrounding area. Accordingly, I find that the appeal scheme would be contrary to the design ambitions of the above policies.
Paragraph 6 · Source pages 1, 2