Appeal 3314996
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
6 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
described as ‘First floor rear extension’.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Preliminary Matters
The description of development taken from the application form reads as follows: “Single partially first floor extension”. However, I have used the description of development displayed on the Council’s decision notice as it is more succinct.
Section 04
Main Issue
The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site relates to a residential dwelling forming the end of a terrace of four dwellings. The appeal proposal consists of a first floor rear extension which would be constructed over an existing single storey flat roof extension.
Numbers 3, 5 and [site address] have had flat roof dormer windows constructed on their rear roof slopes. As these properties are adjoining each other and the dormers cover the full width of each rear roof slope, they appear as a single continuous roof structure, which, together with the lack of first floor rear extensions, has given the rear elevation of the terrace a common alignment and uniform appearance at first floor and above.
The appeal proposal would result in a protrusion beyond the common alignment creating a bulky, obtrusive addition that would materially harm the unity of the rear of the terrace at first floor level. As a result, this would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area where first floor additions are not common.
The appellant has highlighted to me an extension permitted nearby1 that they believe to be similar to the appeal proposal as a justification for the appeal to be allowed. However, having assessed the plans provided to me by the appellant, it is clear the two cases are not comparable as the properties differ in size and the character of the streets on which they are located is also different. In any event, each case must be assessed on its own individual merits, which is what I have done in making this decision.
For the reasons above I conclude that the proposal is harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DMD6 and DMD 37 of the Development Management Document 2014 (the DMD). Together these require that development is of high-quality design that has appropriate regard to its context. In addition, I note that Policy DMD11 states that first floor extensions must, where appropriate, secure a common alignment of rear extensions, which would not be the case here given the lack of other first floor extensions.
The Council also refers to Policy CP30 of the [name] 2010 and Policy D1 of the London Plan in its reason for refusal. However, I have found them not to be determinative for this householder appeal.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.
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 20205No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 June 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 19 April 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3314996
- Application reference
- 22/03251/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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- 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
- 19 January 2023
- Valid date
- 1 February 2023
- Start date
- 6 March 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 December 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 19 June 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
- 34182
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21