Appeal 3291177
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
4 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
part single, part 2-storey side and rear extension with rear and side dormers with front roof lights.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is a detached house on the corner of [address] and Lakenheath. Being on the corner and due to the drop in land levels to the east down Lakenheath, the house is in a prominent position.
The house has previously been enlarged but these include single storey extensions which have minimal impact on the street scene. The proposal, however, would incorporate a two-storey side extension as well as alterations and enlargement of the roof. The cumulative impact of which would be significant.
I have considered the proposal in the light of the policies referred to in the decision notice, in particular, the National Planning Policy Framework1, London Plan2 Policy D4 and Core Strategy3 Policy 30 which all require development to be of a high quality of design. Development Management Document4 policies DMD 6, DMD 8 and DMD 37 also set out design standards. [name] 11, DMD 13 and DMD 14 all specifically refer to extensions to dwellings. 1 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government National Planning Policy Framework, 2021 (the Framework). 2 Mayor of London – The London Plan The Spatial Development Strategy for [name] 2021. 3 Enfield Council The Enfield Plan [name] 2010-2025, [name] 2010. 4 Enfield Council – Improving Enfield Development Management Document (DMD), [name] 2014.
However, the overall bulk and design of the proposals would fail to reflect the original character of the house but rather would result in a mix of additions that would appear cumbersome and awkward. The location of the house on a corner means that it is particularly prominent and so the resulting property would appear unduly intrusive in the street scene. It would fail to meet the aims of these design-led policies.
I have considered the other examples of extensions cited by the appellant which have been approved either by the Council or on appeal. However, I have limited information about these which minimises the weight I can attribute to them. I also note the various extensions to other properties in the vicinity of the appeal site including the significantly altered dwelling on the opposite corner of Lakenheath. However, this also does not justify accepting the proposal.
I have considered all other matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, it would conflict with the policies referred to and therefore, the appeal fails.
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
- 24 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
- 3291177
- Application reference
- 21/03598/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
- 93 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
- 21 January 2022
- Valid date
- 21 January 2022
- Start date
- 3 February 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 16 November 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 24 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
- 12901
- 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