Appeal 3280249
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
4 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
for a part single, part two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a part single, part two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/00907/HOU, dated 10 March 2021, and the plan submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: A21-23-01a.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
[site address] consists of two-storey semi-detached and terraced housing, which stands close to the highway. The area has a close-knit pattern of development with a shared front building line, similar height buildings with limited breaks in built form. An alleyway runs to the side of the plot connecting through to [address] behind. The appeal site is half of a semi-detached pair of dwellings. As the property accords with the local pattern of development it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
The proposed side extension would occupy a currently open gap between the dwelling and an alleyway. The gap provides some sense of visual openness, but this is of moderate gain to the streetscene of [site address] , due to its limited width. Also, the gap as viewed from [address] is largely enclosed by the rear elevations of No’s 105 and [site address] . As a result, this gap makes a negligible contribution to the surrounding streetscene.
Policy DMD 14, of the Council’s Development Management Document (2014)(DMD), provides guidance on side extensions. Such development should be one metre from the boundary of an adjoining property to prevent the ‘terracing effect’. As the plot adjoins an alleyway, rather than an adjoining property, it would not visually connect to the adjacent dwelling or contribute to a terracing effect. The side extension would include a complementary hipped roof. Also, this would be substantially narrower, lower and therefore subservient to the main dwelling. Consequently, the proposed side extension would not compete with the vertical emphasis of the host dwelling’s projecting bay.
The proposed first-floor rear projection would have a limited impact on the appearance of the dwelling’s rear elevation, and its setting with neighbouring development, mindful of it context close to several local similar examples. Furthermore, the proposed single-storey rear extension would satisfy the Council’s guidelines. These elements are relatively insignificant, either separately or in combination, and would not result in disproportionate additions to the existing dwelling.
The appeal site currently accommodates two trees. These seem to be a semi-mature silver birch and a crown lifted fir tree. These are small and appear to be relatively low quality. Being set back into the rear garden they make a limited contribution to [site address] , and only a slightly elevated significance in views from [address]. There is also no evidence before me to illustrate they have significant biodiversity interest. As a result, the affected trees are of limited biodiversity value and their retention is not warranted.
Consequently, the proposed extension would complement the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposal would satisfy policies DMD 6, DMD 8, DMD 11, DMD 13, DMD 14, DMD 37 and DMD 80 of the DMD. Furthermore, the proposal would meet policies CP4, CP30 and CP36 of The Enfield Core Strategy (2010), policies D4 and G7 of the London Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework. These policies, among other matters, seek development to be of an appropriate scale and form and to retain trees where possible.
I have applied conditions, to set a timeframe for the commencement of development and to comply with the approved plan, in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance. A condition requiring materials to match the existing dwelling is necessary in the interests of the area’s character and appearance.
There are no material considerations that indicate the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed, and planning permission granted, subject to the attached conditions.
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 390No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 6 October 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 September 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3280249
- Application reference
- 21/00907/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Enfield
- Planning authority code
- E09000010
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
- 1
- 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
- 4 August 2021
- Valid date
- 4 August 2021
- Start date
- 9 September 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 13 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 6 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
- 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
- 4344
- 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