Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3336644

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 works

One-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

a replacement roof to the existing first floor hipped roof.

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 this part of [address].
Section 04
Reasons
[site address] is a semi-detached house with plain tiled hipped roofs, set within a varied, suburban street of mainly 1930s style houses. The proposal is to replace the existing hipped roof over a 2 storey side section with a flat roof.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document [name] (RDG) stresses the importance of roof design, normally requiring 2 storey extensions to have pitched roofs that would reflect both the material and design of the existing roof. It further advises that all other proposed alterations to roofs of existing dwellings will be assessed on a case by case basis.
In this case, the stepped arrangement of hipped roofs gives the house a harmonious appearance. The proposed replacement flat roof would be widely visible in the street scene where it would be an unsympathetic feature, reducing the attractiveness of the house. There would be a very low section of pitched roof at the front but this would be too small to have any significant visual effect. Although the appellant refers to similar roofs in the general vicinity, I saw only one on this part of [address] - and even that is set well away from No 25 where it does not significantly alter the character of the street. The proposed high level flat roof would be a prominent and incongruous feature which would detract from the street scene, despite the general architectural variation here.
I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of both the house and this part of [address]. It conflicts with policy D3(D1 and D11) of the London Plan, policy CS1(B) of the [name], policy DM1 of the Harrow Development Management Policies and the National Planning Policy Framework, which aim to secure a high standard of design that responds to the existing character of places and protects the character of Harrow’s suburbs.
The property is near to the Canons Park Conservation Area and a grade II listed registered Park and Garden, but the house is set away from these heritage assets so that their settings would be preserved. This is a neutral factor in my decision.
The appellant says that the proposal is a sustainable solution to the use of the property to meet the needs of the family, refurbishing and upgrading the roof and allowing for easier maintenance. The proposal would not, however, increase accommodation at the house and I have seen no evidence of a particular maintenance problem. I see nothing here to override my conclusion in regard to the main issue.
I find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan. 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
14 May 2024Matches the official casework database
Extracted site visit dates
23 April 2024 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference: 3336644
Application reference: P/2444/23
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: 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: 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: 10 January 2024
Valid date: 10 January 2024
Start date: 8 February 2024
Planning authority decision date: 20 October 2023
Appeal decision date: 14 May 2024

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: 51042
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

Back to appeals database Request a correction or privacy review