Appeal 3280576
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
6 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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The development was described on the application form as set out in the heading above. This was amended by the Council, to “roof extension involving hip to gable and rear dormer window.”. This is also the description used by the appellant on her appeal form, and describes the works more fully than the original description. I have therefore used this amended description as the basis for my decision.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
[address] is a residential cul-de-sac comprising two storey semi-detached and detached houses. As the appellant points out in her grounds of appeal, these houses display considerable variation in respect of design and materials. However, I observed on my site visit that the eaves level of the houses is at a reasonably constant height, thereby providing a sense of continuity when moving down the street. Despite the existence of gables on No 23, this consistency of eaves height includes the appeal site, with views along the street including the eaves on the northern-most part of the house.
The appeal proposal would involve the raising of the eaves at No 23 by over a metre. This would appear as obviously out of keeping with the rest of the houses in the street. In addition, the extended section of the appeal property would include a gable with a slacker pitch than found elsewhere on the house. This would be particularly noticeable from the footway along the southern side of the Watford by-pass, immediately to the north of the site. This would not appear as out of character with the flat-roofed ‘Briardale’ block of flats to the east, but would look incongruous when seen in relation to the rest of the appeal property. The combination of this feature and the raised eaves would mean that No 23 would appear as at odds with its neighbours in [address] to a significantly greater extent than is the case already, such that the character and appearance of the street would be unacceptably harmed.
I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policy CS5 of the [name]: [name] (2012), and Policy DM01 of the [name]: Development Management Policies DPD (2012). These policies seek, amongst other things, development that respects local context and distinctive local character, and that does not cause harm to the character or appearance of the property or area.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
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 1440No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 30 November 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 23 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3280576
- Application reference
- 21/2506/HSE
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Barnet
- Planning authority code
- E09000003
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
- 11 m²
- 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
- 9 August 2021
- Valid date
- 21 August 2021
- Start date
- 25 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 June 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 30 November 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
- 6839
- 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