Appeal 3281281
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
described on the application form as extensions and loft conversion including roof height increase.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a 2-storey detached house. It is located in a residential street and forms the end property in a row of handsome gable-fronted detached houses of similar age and appearance. These properties are evenly spaced and generally retain their original roof form. This gives the group a high degree of unity, which positively contributes to the character and appearance of the street scene.
The proposal would include side and rear additions at ground and first floor level plus the formation of dormers on both roof slopes. Both dormers would extend to ridge level and the one on the more exposed side of the house would occupy the majority of the roof slope. This element alone, due to its size and siting, would be an overly prominent and incongruous element that would harm both the appearance of the host property and the street scene. This harm would be exacerbated by the smaller dormer on the other side of the roof and the first floor side addition, both of which would be highly incongruous additions that would unbalance the appearance of the host property.
Due to their siting, size and design, I therefore conclude the first floor and roof additions would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene. Consequently, the proposal fails to comply with [name], CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) (2012), Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) (2012), and guidance contained in the Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016). These policies and guidance seek to ensure that, amongst other matters, new development is well designed, respects the appearance, scale, and mass of surrounding buildings, and responds to the existing character of an area.
I note my colleague’s comments in respect of a recent appeal in the borough1 and the emphasis in the London Plan (2021) on exploring the potential to intensify the use of land to support additional homes. However, London Plan Policies D1 and D3 also advocate a design–led approach and the latter states that development proposals should enhance local context by delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness through their layout, orientation, scale, appearance and shape, with due regard to existing and emerging street hierarchy, building types, forms and proportions. For the reasons set out above the proposal is also contrary to these London Plan policies.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.
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 246No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 20 December 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 26 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3281281
- Application reference
- 21/2905/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
- 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
- 19 August 2021
- Valid date
- 19 August 2021
- Start date
- 20 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 20 December 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
- 7944
- 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