Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

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 works

One-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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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