Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

Appeal 3336876

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 first floor side/rear infill extension.

Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The existing dwelling has a hipped main roof and an outrigger to the rear which is set below the eaves. The outrigger has a very shallowly pitched roof which matches that of its neighbour. The lower level and scale of these outriggers ensures that they sit subserviently to the rear and do not compete with the overall form of the main parts of the dwellings that they serve. These twin features represent distinctive, uniform elements when visible within the street scene. Although the detailing of the outriggers has little architectural interest, it is their form, in relation to the main terrace, that positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area.
The infilling of the area between the flank wall and the outrigger would increase the scale and prominence of the side elevation when viewed from the street. The greater expanse of this unrelieved elevation, including the flat parapet to the roof, would detract from the existing form of the main roof and the proportions of the flank elevation. The side wall and parapet would be prominent and the lack of relief back from the pavement would detract from the character and appearance of the property when viewed from the side. When viewed from the rear, the subordinate nature of the outriggers would be lost as the new arrangement would dominate the rear elevation. This would reduce the design quality of the composition overall and would represent poor design. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision: APP/Q5300/D/24/3336876
There are a number of end properties in the vicinity that have had similar works completed. No details have been provided to suggest that these have been recent additions or considered against the current development plan policies. They do not make a positive contribution to the street scene and do not suggest that these works would be acceptable. The proposal is therefore contrary to the design objectives of policy D4 of The London Plan 2021; policy CP30 of the [name] 2010-2025 (2010); and policies DMD6(a&c), DMD8(1b) and DMD11(1c) of the Development Management Document 2014. There would also be conflict with the element of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 which seeks development that adds to the overall quality of the area.
The proposal would provide a first floor bathroom and improve the accommodation within the dwelling. It would also bring investment to the local economy. However, whilst there are matters that weigh in favour of allowing alterations to the property, they are not sufficient to outweigh my concerns. I therefore dismiss the appeal.

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 341No official casework-database value to compare
Extracted site visit dates
23 April 2024 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference: 3336876
Application reference: 23/03505/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: 5 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: 14 January 2024
Valid date: 23 January 2024
Start date: 19 February 2024
Planning authority decision date: 10 January 2024
Appeal decision date: 8 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: 50657
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