Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3342622

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

conversion of garage into habitable space, internal alterations with associated external window/door changes, new roof light, first floor part upper/side extension, loft conversion with rear and side dormers and no. 5 roof lights.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of garage into habitable space, internal alterations with associated external window/door changes, new roof light, first floor part upper/side extension, loft conversion with rear and side dormers and no. 5 roof lights at [site address] , Edgware, Harrow, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/0275/23, dated 25 January 2023 and in accordance with the following conditions:

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision;

    The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building;

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: 22001 HH1 01.02 [name] floor plans, section and elevations.

  2. Section 03

    Main Issue

    The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Canons Park Conservation Area.

  3. Section 04

    Reasons

    The appeal property is a semi-detached two storey dwelling situated in a residential area characterised by the presence of similar detached and semi-detached two storey dwellings.

    The appeal property is located within the Canons Park Conservation Area, characterised by the presence of Tudor revival-style dwellings within a formally planned Metroland estate, notable for its layout of green and spacious streets. Streets include many examples of simple, small, detached and semi-detached two storey dwellings with accommodation at roof level.

    During my site visit, I noted the sylvan setting of [address], with its wide street incorporating grass verges and street trees; and with small front gardens and/or parking areas, which provide for the setting back of dwellings behind areas of greenery. Whilst dwellings are located close alongside one another, there is still plentiful scope for glimpses through to the greenery of gardens to the rear.

    The appeal dwelling, like other houses along [address], is notable for its traditional appearance, including its attractive two storey bay and gable feature, small integrated front garage, arched doorway and cat-slide roof to the side. Whilst not identical, it appears similar to its attached neighbour, Number [address] and its retention of many traditional features is a characteristic it shares with surrounding dwellings.

    The appeal dwelling is also similar in appearance to its other immediate neighbour, Number [address], which is situated closely alongside. The most notable difference between the two dwellings being a side extension to No 10, which faces directly towards the side of the appeal dwelling.

    The proposed development would include a side dormer. This would be set well-back from the front of the dwelling, thus maintaining the distinctive visual presence of the dwelling’s cat-slide roof and integrated garage, seen from the front elevation.

    Further, the side dormer would be set well-down from the main ridge, resulting in it appearing as a subservient addition. This feature, together with the relatively narrow length, modest projection and setting back of the dormer from the front of the house would result in a modest and attractive addition, carefully designed to appear in keeping with the appearance of the host dwelling. 10.In addition to the above, I find that the proposed side dormer would relate very well to the neighbouring side extension to Number 10. It would add a degree of symmetry to the two immediately adjacent dwellings and I consider that this would be to the benefit of the Canons Park Conservation Area’s uniform qualities. 11.In the above regard, the setting back, careful design and modest dimensions of the proposed side dormer would ensure that it would appear neither bulky nor incongruous and that it would maintain and not visually harm, the existing sense of symmetry with the attached dwelling, No 14. 12.As noted above, during my site visit I observed that whilst dwellings tend to be located close alongside one another, there are still occasional glimpses between 2 of 3 dwellings to greenery to the rear. This is achieved via small gaps between dwellings and pairs of dwellings. 13.The proposed side dormer would provide for a small visual gap between the appeal dwelling and No 10 and would, as a consequence, conserve this characteristic which makes a small but positive contribution to the Canons Park Conservation Area’s green and spacious qualities. 14.Noting all of the above, I find that the proposed development preserves the character and appearance of the Canons Park Conservation Area. The proposal would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework or to London Plan (2021) Policies D3 and HC1; to Development Management Policies (2013) Policies DM1 and DM7; to [name] (2012) Policy CS1; to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Residential [name] (2010); or to the Council’s Canons Park Estate Conservation Area Appraisal and [name] (2013), which together amongst other things seek to protect local character.

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 601No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    9 July 2024Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    26 June 2024 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3342622
Application reference
P/0275/23
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
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
1
Site in Green Belt
No
Agricultural holding
Not recorded
Affects setting of a listed building
Yes
Historic building grant made
Not recorded
Relates to a conservation area
Yes
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
16 April 2024
Valid date
16 April 2024
Start date
15 May 2024
Planning authority decision date
16 February 2024
Appeal decision date
9 July 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
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
53732
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