Appeal 3366359
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
5 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
described on the application form as a loft conversion to include rear dormer, dormer to rear outrigger and front roof lights.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property forms part of a terrace of 2-storey houses with mirrored 2- storey outriggers to the rear. It is situated in a residential area comprising terraced housing of similar age and appearance. Except for [address], which includes an imposing and incongruous rear roof addition, the terrace of which the appeal property forms part retains its original roof form. This gives it a high degree of uniformity at roof level, a matter to which I attach significant weight.
The proposal would comprise the erection of a flat-roofed roof addition that would occupy the main rear roof slope and almost the entirety of the roof of the outrigger to enable the formation of 2 bedrooms. [name] note that this addition would not be visible from the street, due to its siting, bulk, massing and design it would be an overly dominant and incongruous element in views from gardens and properties to the rear and would severely harm the unity of the terrace.
For these reasons, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. As such it fails to accord with [name] 6, DMD 8, DMD 13 and DMD 37 of the Enfield Development Management Document (2014) and Policy CP30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010-2025 (2010) and London Plan Policies insofar as they require good design that positively responds to local distinctiveness, is appropriate to the existing pattern of development, and does not harm the character of the area. There is also conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024).
The information before me indicates that the appeal property benefits from permitted development rights and that the appellant may be able to add a substantial roof addition to the rear of the appeal property without the need for planning permission. The appellant has suggested that the appeal proposal would be 1.85m3 larger than would be allowed under permitted development limitations. However, in the absence of clear evidence that this is in fact the case and a Certificate of Lawfulness to demonstrate what precisely can be constructed under permitted development rights, I attribute limited weight to the suggested fall-back scenario.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.
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 246No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 14 July 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 27 June 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3366359
- Application reference
- 25/00112/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
- 28 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
- 23 May 2025
- Valid date
- 23 May 2025
- Start date
- 27 May 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 14 July 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
- 72919
- 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