Appeal 3358303
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
6 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
4.8m single storey rear extension with internal alterations to ground floor.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development the living conditions of occupiers of No. [address].
Section 04
Reasons
The site is located within a predominantly residential area, the appeal property is a mid-terraced house. The proposed rear extension would extend the full width of the site. The adjoining property No. [address] has been extended to the rear at single storey, No. [address] does not have a rear single storey extension to the rear.
The proposed development would project beyond the rear elevation of the extension at No. 59, notwithstanding this the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of occupiers of No. 59.
The proposed extension would project 4.8m along the shared boundary with No. 63 with a wall height of approximately 3.3m from the ground floor level. The slightly mono pitched roof would be lower than the side wall and contain a lantern rooflight. No. 63 has a large bay window close to the shared boundary.
Due to the scale the proposed rear extension would be stark and dominant to the occupiers of the neighbouring property, No. 63. I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of occupiers of No. [address].
There is conflict with Core Policy 30 of the Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 (2010) and Policies DMD8 and DMD11 of the Enfield Development Management Appeal Decision: APP/Q5300/D/25/3358303 Document (2014) which seeks amongst other things to protect the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has drawn my attention to other developments approved by the Council. I have not been provided with substantive details to consider the context of the sites and compare these to the proposal before me. Notwithstanding this I note that the majority relate to prior approval applications. Each development must be considered on its individual merits, and I have reached my conclusion based on the individual merit of the appeal proposal.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be 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 126No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 17 April 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 10 April 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3358303
- Application reference
- 24/02892/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
- 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
- 21 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
- 2 January 2025
- Valid date
- 14 January 2025
- Start date
- 6 February 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 1 November 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 17 April 2025
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
- 68243
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21