Appeal 3287341
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 as ‘Hip to gable (granted under appeal) and extension to rear dormer window’.
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 area.
Section 04
Reasons
The side of [address] where the appeal site is located is predominantly residential in character. No 54 sits within a section of the road mainly characterised by two-storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings. The host dwelling is an end-terraced property situated on a corner plot at the junction with [address]. It has been substantially extended and includes a two-storey side and rear projection. Large rear dormers are common in the area and the appeal dwelling has an existing box-dormer to its rear roof slope. However, this dormer and others in the area are generally set away from the boundary with [address]. This helps to reduce the prominence of these bulky roof additions with a focus on more traditional pitched roof forms closer to the boundary with the street. Overall, these factors give order and consistency to the street scene.
The evidence before me indicates that planning permission has already been granted for a hip to gable roof extension. However, the proposed dormer would combine with the gabled end to create a bulky and dominant roof form close to the roadside boundary. In addition, when seen cumulatively with the existing hipped roof of the rear projection and the existing box dormer, the proposal would result in an unconventional and cluttered roofscape to the side and rear of the dwelling which would significantly detract from the quality of the street scene.
I conclude, the development would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would conflict with the design and local context requirements of Policy D4 (Delivering good design) of the London Plan (2021), [name] 6 ([name]), DMD 8 (General Standards for New Residential Development), DMD 13 ([name]) and DMD 37 ([name] and Design-Led Development) of the Enfield Council Development Management Document (2014) and Policy CP30 (Maintaining and Improving the Quality of the Built and [name]) of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy (2010).
The Council’s decision also refers to Policy D1 (London’s form, character and capacity for growth). This policy primarily relates to the preparation of area assessments and development plans. [name] have therefore not identified specific conflict with this policy, this does not diminish the conflict with the other development plan policies identified above.
Section 05
Conclusion
The development would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore 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 121No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 9 March 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 28 February 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3287341
- Application reference
- 21/03495/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
- 0 m²
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 19 November 2021
- Valid date
- 19 November 2021
- Start date
- 14 January 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 12 November 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 9 March 2022
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
- 11993
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:26
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21