Appeal 3331392
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
rear conservatory.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
This is the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The proposed conservatory would be built up to an existing rear extension. Their combined depth would be some 6m from the rear wall of the original terraced house. The appeal property has also been extended at roof level by forming a large rear dormer window. Together, the existing additions and the proposed conservatory would alter the appearance of the dwelling to an unacceptable extent, also increasing its overall bulk and massing further. The cumulative effect of this development would amount to disproportionate and incongruous additions to the original dwellinghouse which would not appear subordinate to the host property. Furthermore, the overall depth of the rear extensions would be double the maximum 3m guidance set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: [name] (2016) (SPD) which, amongst other things, seeks to protect local character.
There are modest extensions at the rear of the neighbouring properties, Nos 11 and [address] which are similar to the existing rear extension. The presence of potentially deeper extensions elsewhere in the road does not affect my conclusions which relate to the effect of the proposal on the appeal property and its setting. Within its specific context, the increased depth and massing of development resulting from the proposed development would appear incongruous and would fail to respect local character.
I conclude that the size and rearward projection of the proposed conservatory in addition to the existing extensions would constitute disproportionate and incongruous additions to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. For these reasons, the proposal is contrary to Policy DM01 of the Development Management DPD, Policy CS5 of the [name] and the SPD.
For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, 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 322No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 December 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 25 November 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3331392
- Application reference
- 23/2956/HSE
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Barnet
- Planning authority code
- E09000003
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
- 10 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
- No
- 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
- 16 October 2023
- Valid date
- 16 October 2023
- Start date
- 1 November 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 September 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 12 December 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
- 43437
- 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