Appeal 3286109
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 a loft conversion including hip to gable and rear dormer.
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 surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a 2-storey detached house with a hipped roof. It is located in a residential street predominately comprising houses of similar age and appearance. Although many have been extended, most of the properties close to the appeal property retain their hipped roof forms, which gives this section of the street a high degree of visual unity.
A Lawful Development Certificate1 has been issued by the Council confirming that the erection of a hip to gable roof extension together with a small rear dormer at the appeal property is permitted development. Due to its bulk, massing and design this permitted scheme would be an overly dominant and incongruous addition that would harm the appearance of the host property and would be incompatible with the houses to either side which, although significantly extended, retain hipped roofs. I consider there to be a high probability that this permitted development would be carried out and therefore it is a fall-back position to which I attach significant weight.
Like the fall-back scheme, the appeal proposal would comprise a hip to gable roof extension. Whilst the fall-back scheme permits a modest-sized dormer in the rear roof slope, the appeal proposal would include a far larger one which 1 Ref: 21/3314/192 would occupy almost the full-width of the expanded rear roof slope. This would incorporate a pair of windows and glazed doors with a juliette balcony. The appeal proposal would add additional bulk, over and above that resulting from the fall-back scheme. This would result in unacceptable harm to the appearance of the host property.
In addition, the large dormer would be at odds with the houses either side which do not include dormers in their rear roof slopes. As such, the design and massing of the appeal proposal would be out of keeping with, and harmful to, the appearance of its immediate neighbours and the surroundings.
Due to its siting, bulk, massing and design, I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Consequently, it fails to comply with Policy 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.
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
- 21 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
- 3286109
- Application reference
- 21/4114/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
- 40 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
- 3 November 2021
- Valid date
- 3 November 2021
- Start date
- 5 November 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 October 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 21 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
- 8040
- 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