Appeal 3302969
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
a double storey side extension, double storey rear extension and front porch.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
A previous application1 for a side extension was recently refused. The appellant notes that the proposal the subject of this appeal reduces the width of the proposed side extension compared to the previously refused proposal, and “trades off” this lost floor space with a modest first floor rear extension.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling with a single storey attached garage to the side. The dwelling has a rear dormer roof extension and is set back from the road behind a parking area and has a garden to the rear.
The surrounding area is residential and is characterised by the presence of two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings set back from the road behind short front gardens and/or parking areas and with longer gardens to the rear.
During my site visit, I observed the area to appear green and spacious due in part to the presence of wide pavements with grass verges, occasional street trees, planting to front garden areas and glimpses through the gaps between dwellings to space and greenery beyond. The common presence of bay 1 Ref: P/2062/21. windows, along with brick, render and tiling provides for a pleasant sense of uniformity.
I also noted during my site visit that whilst many dwellings have been altered and/or extended, such changes tend to appear in keeping with the host property and the surrounding area.
The existing dwelling has previously been extended through a hip to gable roof extension. The proposed development would involve a two storey side extension alongside this previous extension. This would result in visual inconsistency between the existing and proposed roof form.
Resultantly, I find that the proposal would draw attention to itself as an awkward and incoherent addition, out of keeping with the host property and entirely at odds with the wider roofscape along [address]. 10.The harm arising from this would be exacerbated as a result of the roof to the proposed rear extension failing to correspond with, or respond appropriately to, the gable end roof form of the host property. Taken together, the side and rear extension would appear as an awkward, bulky and incongruous addition. It would comprise visual clutter and would draw the eye as an alien feature, out of keeping with its surroundings. 11.Taking the above into account, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to London Plan (2021) Policy D3; to Core Strategy2 Policy CS1; to DMP3 Policy DM1 and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: [name] (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
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 601No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 October 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 14 September 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3302969
- Application reference
- P/0879/22
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Harrow
- Planning authority code
- E09000015
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
- 48 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
- 12 July 2022
- Valid date
- 12 July 2022
- Start date
- 27 July 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 April 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 12 October 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
- 21904
- 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