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 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
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.
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.
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.
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