Appeal 3314459
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
the demolition of a detached garage and the construction of a double storey side, part front and part rear extension, with associated balcony and front bay window, alterations to the front entrance door and side facing window fenestrations.
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 house and [address].
Section 04
Reasons
[address] is a short suburban cul-de-sac lined by detached and semi-detached houses of similar style, with double height bay window projections at the front and hipped or crown roofs. No 2 is a detached house on a wide plot, with single storey garages to either side. The proposal is to build a 2 storey extension to one side, replacing a garage, with a matching full height bay at the front and also stretching well to the rear. A new first floor element would also be added to the other side of the house, at the back.
I note that a potential revised design was discussed with the Council, but understand that those plans were never submitted formally. I base this decision on the plans refused by the Council.
Extending both forward and to the rear of the main house would create extremely long and somewhat monolithic 2 storey walls on both sides. The massing of these walls would be accentuated by a general lack of articulation or modulation of the form. Although the houses at [address] are typically deep in plan the proposal would be out of scale and proportion, even in this context. The side walls would be overly imposing features in views from the street, particularly when entering the cul-de-sac.
On a more positive note, the main extension would be kept back about a metre from the side boundary, in line with the Council’s Development Management Document (DMD) policy DMD14. A substantial gap would remain between the 2 storey sections of No. 2 and the houses to either side, so that there would still be space for views, air and light between the houses. The bay extension would balance the frontage of the building and could potentially blend in acceptably if carefully matched in terms of detailing and materials. Nevertheless, the bulky and awkward 2 storey side walls that would be created by this proposal would be out of character with and harmful to the street scene.
I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the house and [address]. It therefore conflicts with the shared aims of London Plan policies D4 and D8, Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 policy CP30 and DMD policies DMD6, DMD8, DMD11, DMD14 and DMD37, to secure high quality development that is appropriate in terms of scale, bulk and massing.
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.
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 890No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 April 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 March 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3314459
- Application reference
- 22/03661/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
- Unknown
- 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
- 88 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
- 10 January 2023
- Valid date
- 10 January 2023
- Start date
- 21 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 21 December 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 18 April 2023
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
- 31340
- 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