Appeal 3277925
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
5 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
a loft conversion with dormer; front 1m fence and change of living room window to same width French doors.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a modern two storey end of terrace dwelling. It is located in a residential area.
[address] comprises a cul-de-sac characterised by the presence of terraces of modern two storey dwellings of very similar appearance. Dwellings are of brick and tile construction and have simple porchways that face onto short front garden areas. Dwellings have longer gardens to the rear.
During my site visit, I observed that only minor alterations/extensions to dwellings are visible along [address]. Consequently, the street’s roofscape is unbroken and [address] has a strong and attractive sense of uniformity. Whilst front gardens are only short, built development does not tend to intrude into them and this provides for a pleasant sense of spaciousness, openness and greenery - attributes that are further enhanced by the absence of boundary walls or fences, such that the gardens are open to the pavement.
The proposed front dormer would introduce a built feature not seen anywhere else on [address]. In doing so, it would break up the otherwise unbroken roofscape, leading the proposal to appear as an alien feature. The scale and siting of the dormer would result in it appearing as an unduly dominant and prominent feature and I find that this would exacerbate the harm arising by way of incongruity.
Further to the above, the proposed boundary fence and replacement of a window with French doors would also introduce incongruous features that would serve to draw attention to themselves as visually intrusive additions. The proposed fence would introduce a sense of enclosure that would detract from the area’s identified open and spacious qualities; and the proposed French doors would be unlike and jar with the regular appearance of neighbouring dwellings and detract significantly from [address]’s uniform qualities.
Given all of this, I find that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policies D1 and D3.D; to Core Strategy1 Policy CS1.B; to DMP2 Policy DM1 and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: [name] (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Section 05
Other Matters
In support of her case, the appellant draws attention to other dormers in the wider area. However, these relate to different streets elsewhere, none of which share the same identified qualities as [address]. Notwithstanding this, I have found that the proposal would result in significant harm and this is not a factor outweighed by the presence of other forms of development elsewhere.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 October 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 5 October 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3277925
- Application reference
- P/1303/21
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Harrow
- Planning authority code
- E09000015
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
- 28 June 2021
- Valid date
- 28 June 2021
- Start date
- 20 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 9 June 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 19 October 2021
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
- No
- 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
- 4827
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21