Appeal 3361289
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
erection of single storey rear infill extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address].
Section 04
Reasons
The site is located within a predominantly residential area, the appeal property is two storey mid-terraced with a two storey outrigger to the rear which has been historically extended to include a wrap around single storey rear extension with flat roof.
The proposed development would infill the existing passage leading from the original property towards the wrap around extension and rear garden beyond. The proposed development would be built up to the boundary, similar to the existing wrap around extension, however, would have a mono pitched roof rather than flat roof.
The separation distance between the proposed development and No. [address] is approximately 1.8m, however the bay window facing the appeal site boundary is approximately 1m from the proposed development. There is also a window at ground floor in the rear elevation of No. 36.
I observed on my site visit that the shared boundary close boarded fence is approximately 2.2m in height, the proposed development would have a height of 2.5m on the boundary projecting up to 3m to the top of the proposed mono pitched roof.
I understand that an infill proposal was previous dismissed at appeal1, the proposed before me has been revised in an attempt to address the previous refusal. Notwithstanding the change to the roof of the proposed infill due to the separation distance between No. 36 and the appeal site the bulk of the proposed development would exacerbate the sense of enclosure by creating a tunnelling effect. The proposed development would be overbearing and oppressive to the occupiers of No. 36.
Whilst the amount of light is already limited to No. 36 due to the two storey outrigger and existing extension the proposed development would reduce the amount of light further.
I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address].
There is conflict with Policy SP11 of the Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies 2013-2026 (2013, consolidated with alterations since 2017), Policies DM1 and DM12 of the Haringey Development Management DPD (2017) and Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) which, amongst other things, set out design principles for new development which, in combination, seek to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has drawn my attention to other similar developments within the area. I have not been provided with substantive details to compare these to the proposal before me. Notwithstanding this 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
- 23 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
- 3361289
- Application reference
- HGY/2024/3299
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- London Borough of Haringey
- Planning authority code
- E09000014
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
- 10 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
- 25 February 2025
- Valid date
- 25 February 2025
- Start date
- 13 March 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 23 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
- 68399
- 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