Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3288291

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

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

proposed basement including side light well development for residential leisure use.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a proposed basement including side light well development for residential leisure use at [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/4239/HSE, dated 28 July 2021, subject to the following conditions:

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

    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.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • [name]: - Site Plan – 0529_00_001; • Existing: - 0529_98_101; 0529_98_107; 0529_98_201; and 0529_98_202. • Proposed: - 0529_00_002; 0529_00_005; 0529_00_101 (proposed front and side elevations); 0529_00_101 (proposed rear and side elevations); 0529_00_111; and 0529_00_112.

  2. Section 03

    Procedural Matter

    The second reason for refusal relates to the effect on existing trees and shrubbery on the site. The Council’s Officer Report refers to viewing aerial imagery of the site and notes that there is a mature tree within the rear amenity space and various trees and shrubs along the boundary but the application did not include information regarding these. However, it is apparent on site that the only tree that could have been affected by the proposal was a mature Willow tree in the rear garden. However, at the time of my site visit this had been severely cut back so that little more than a trunk and some bare limbs remain. I have not therefore included this matter any further in my assessment of this proposal.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the area.

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The appeal site is a substantial detached house amongst a linear development along [address]. The house has been previously extended and there is a raised patio area to the rear. The house benefits from a fairly large garden. The proposed basement would be excavated beneath the patio. Above ground evidence of the basement would be minimal.

    Council’s Core Strategy Policy CS51 seeks to ensure that development respects local context and distinctive local character that creates places and buildings of high quality design and Development Management Policy DM012 also establishes the Council’s requirement for high quality design based on an understanding of local characteristics and the preservation and enhancement of local character.

    The Council’s SPD Residential Design Guidance3 indicates that the Council will normally allow single floor basement extensions which do not project further than 3 metres from the rear wall of a house. The SPD further notes that nearby tree roots should not be damaged; no more than 50% of the amenity space, e.g. garden, should be removed; neighbouring water conditions should not be adversely affected; and any exposed area of basement should be subordinate to the property being extended and respect its original design and proportions; light wells should be discreet; railing should avoid creating visual clutter; and all rooms should be able to function properly for the purpose intended.

    The proposed basement would provide a cinema room and a gym together with a small wine cellar and it would satisfy most of the guidelines in the SPD. However, it would project significantly more than 3 metres from the rear wall of the house by extending over 11 metres. However, the proposed basement would not be constructed beneath the house but would be under the existing patio area and part of the garden. Given that the patio/terrace would remain along with a substantial amount of garden, the visual impact of the proposal would be minimal. Furthermore, given the overall size and appearance of the house and its setting, the proposed basement would not have an adverse effect on the appearance of the house or its wider setting. Despite, its size therefore, given its relationship to the existing house, patio and garden, I do not consider 1 Barnet London Borough – Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document September 2012. 2 Barnet London Borough – Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document September 2012. 3 Barnet London Borough Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October

    (Part 3 Design Guidance for Existing Residential Development in Barnet). that it would impact on the character or appearance of the house itself or the area generally.

    I note the concerns raised about surface water drainage by the occupier of the neighbouring property, especially given that No 40 is on a lower level than No

    However, although the basement would involve excavating beneath the patio and part of the garden, the amount of additional above ground hardsurfacing would be small. In the absence of evidence that there is an existing issue regarding surface drainage that would be exacerbated by this proposal, this matter does not alter my conclusion.

    Conditions have been suggested by the Council which I have considered in the light of the Planning Practice Guidance4. I agree that the works above ground should be in material to match the existing dwelling in order to ensure a satisfactory appearance. Also for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning, I consider that a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans is necessary.

    I have considered all matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character or appearance of the existing dwelling or on the area. It would not conflict with policies CS5 or DM01 and therefore the appeal succeeds.

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 226No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    22 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
3288291
Application reference
21/4239/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
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
3 December 2021
Valid date
3 December 2021
Start date
20 January 2022
Planning authority decision date
15 October 2021
Appeal decision date
22 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
12748
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