Appeal 3314877
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
alterations to approved application HGY/2021/0830 'Construction of single storey front and rear extensions, the insertion of a side window and the creation of a side link between the main building and side garage' including revisions to conform with Building Regulation requirements.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for alterations to approved application HGY/2021/0830 'Construction of single storey front and rear extensions, the insertion of a side window and the creation of a side link between the main building and side garage' including revisions to conform with Building Regulation requirements at [site address] , Hornsey, London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2022/2219, dated 5 September 2022, and the plans submitted with it.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
In the interests of clarity, in the banner heading above I have referred to the description of the proposal given by the appellant on the appeal form as this gives a clear description of the type of development proposed which reflects that used by the Council in their decision notice.
At the time of my visit, I saw that the development was complete and therefore I am considering this appeal retrospectively.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Highgate Conservation Area (CA).
Section 05
Reasons
[address] is a small residential cul-de-sac that branches off and slopes down from [address]. [address] consists of a relatively wide tree lined road with 3 storey detached double bay houses set behind gardens containing mature trees and bushes. It is these imposing houses and their green setting that contribute to the character and appearance of the CA close to the appeal site, and its significance, rather than the houses in [address] which are identified by the Council as negative contributors to the CA.
The appeal site is the end property in a terrace of 6 houses at the bottom of the close, adjacent to a group of garages. The terrace comprises pairs of houses of similar height that step down the hill. They are 1960’s, 2 storey properties with low pitched roofs, white painted horizontal boards between the ground and second floor and projecting front porches which adjoin those of neighbouring houses.
The Council is concerned that the flat roof on the front porch sits higher than that of the adjoining neighbour’s porch and thus interrupts the symmetry of the pair of houses, affecting the street scene. Nos 12 and 22 have different porch roof heights to that of their neighbours. Also, some porches have flues projecting from their roofs and others have rooflights of various designs. Furthermore, the colour of front doors and their side panels and those of ground and first floor windows vary throughout the cul-de-sac. As a result, there is enough variation in the appearance of properties within the Close that the development does not look unduly out of place. It does not therefore in my view harm the appearance of the house or the wider area.
I do not consider that the lack of white vertical boarding and extent of exposed brickwork around the front extension is excessive and harmful to the appearance of the host property, as suggested by the Council. The colour of the bricks closely matches that of the rest of the house. When approaching the site from the garages below or from further up the hill, the front extension is seen in the context of the large expanse of brickwork on the flank wall of the house opposite. Furthermore, the design resembles that of No 12’s, at the other end of the terrace. The officers’ delegated report noted that it could be considered that it will add to the symmetry of the end of terrace properties. That is my view, despite the differences in design highlighted by the Council.
Overall, I conclude that the development does not harm the character or appearance of the building and area and thus preserves that of the CA. It does not therefore conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), Policies D6 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021), Policies SP11 and SP12 of the Haringey Local Plan (2017), Policies DM1, DM9 and DM12 of the Haringey Development Management DPD (2017) and Policy DH2 of the Highgate Neighbourhood Plan (2017) which require high quality development which preserves or enhances the character or appearance of conservation areas.
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 128No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 10 May 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 April 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3314877
- Application reference
- HGY/2022/2219
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Haringey
- Planning authority code
- E09000014
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
- 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
- 17 January 2023
- Valid date
- 6 February 2023
- Start date
- 28 February 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 26 October 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 10 May 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
- No
- 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
- 32391
- 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