This case started for us when we were contacted by our client after their recent application for a 6m rear extension had been refused by London Borough of Hillingdon Council and a decision notice had been issued to our client refusing the application.
The refusal was issued on the 2nd August and as a House Holder Application, the appeal had 12 weeks from the decision notice to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.
We always recommend leaving at least a whole clear month from instruction to appeal deadline in-case additional investigations are needed, but the more time available the better.
The refusal reasons given by London Borough of Hillingdon Council were by virtue of its size, scale, bulk, depth and proximity to the boundary, would be detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining occupier at 18 Roseville Road, by reason of overdominance, overshadowing, visual intrusion, loss of light and loss of outlook.
Therefore the proposal would be contrary to Policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two – Development Management Policies.
These refusal reasons can be considered harsh as this was only a 6m single story rear extension. But local planning officers like to emphasise their refusal reasons and we are used to dealing with these.
Local Authorities know from experience if they portray the refusal in the worst possible way then the chances of the case being appealed is reduced.
In fact many people do not appeal and give up at this stage, but honestly refusal reasons like these are perfectly normal and as shown here can be overcome when appealed with a robust, comprehensive and detailed argument.
We at HEAL Planning have a lot of experience dealing with rear extension refusals of this type in Hillingdon, London and England as a whole.
For this appeal we produced a 15 page detailed appeal statement, working our way through the delegated officers report and decision notice, dismantling their objections and the reasons London Borough of Hillingdon Council used to refuse this application.
Providing a comprehensive and robust argument, bringing national and local policies into play, and detailed reasoning as to why the findings were wrong, and in-fact this development was perfectly acceptable.
Additionally we completed a detailed amount of research to find very similar cases, that the planning inspectorate had previously granted, and we looked to use these cases to support our argument as best possible.
As this appeal was a House Holder appeal the local authority, which in this case was the London Borough of Hillingdon Council, did not have the right of response to our appeal statement.
This case like the vast majority of similar cases, was dealt with by way of Written Representation, and as such it is paramount that the argument is very comprehensive and robust as there is no second chance to respond.
The inspector visited the appeal site on 25th January 2022 and issued the appeal decision on 15th February 2022 in a two page to the point report.
The good news was that the appeal was upheld and the permission granted.
Hillingdon Council Planning Appeal Case Study 1st Floor Rear Extension
If you would like a free no obligation consultation with a member of our team please call us on 01743 369911
