Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 6000025

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

7 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 planning application form as ‘Proposed replacement of front gates and fence’.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed replacement of front gates and fence at [site address] , [site address] , Totteridge, Barnet, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application Ref 24/3413/HSE, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: OTC-03 ([name]); OTC-01 (only insofar as it relates to [name]/[name] and Proposed Floor Plan); and Site Location Plan dated 30 August 2024.

  2. Section 03

    [name]

    The Council adopted the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (LP) on 4 March 2025. This replaces the previous Local Plan referred to in the Council’s reason for refusal. Both parties have been given an opportunity to comment on the implications of this for the appeal. The Council provided copies of Policies GSS01, CDH04 and HOU03 of the LP which relate to delivering sustainable growth, tall buildings and residential conversions which are not relevant to the appeal proposal.

  3. Section 04

    Background and Main Issue

    The gates and fencing which I saw at my site visit do not have the benefit of planning permission and were the subject of a previous appeal1. This appeal relates to a proposal to replace a section of the fencing with a hedge planted above a low wall, reducing the height of a section of the fence and the installation of a pedestrian gate both with a height of 1.1m and replacing the existing vehicular gate with one which comprises of open metal slats of a varied height not exceeding 1.4 metres. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/C/22/3311752 & APP/N5090/C/22/3311753

    Therefore, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Totteridge Conservation Area (CA).

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The CA is predominantly residential with a variety of building styles and ages in a countryside setting. Houses tend to be set back from the road with mature landscaping and trees. This results in the CA having a semi-rural and verdant character. The significance of the CA derives from it being a visually attractive, historic settlement in a rural landscape setting.

    The appeal property is located at the junction of [site address] and [address], with vehicular access from the latter. [site address] is narrow, winding and semi-rural in character with overhanging trees, simple cottages and houses. Where gates are provided these tend to be open, providing views to the houses behind. [address] consists of relatively modern dwellings and has a more open character. There are fewer trees and planting and houses tend to be open to the road. [address], on the opposite side of the junction of [site address] and [address] is an exception, being enclosed by an established hedge and gates. The rear garden of the appeal property is also enclosed by a close boarded fence which abuts [address].

    The CAS2 states that elaborately designed wall, railing and gate features is a significant issue throughout the CA and that gates which prevent views of houses and gardens have had a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the CA.

    The removal of part of the existing fence and the provision of a laurel hedge in its place, would reduce the extent of the harsh boundary treatment to [address]. It would appropriately reflect the treatment of the boundary of [address] on the opposite side of the junction and the overall verdant character of the CA.

    The proposed pedestrian gate and adjoining fence would be 1.1m high. The vehicular gate would be no greater than 1.4m high at its highest point. Both gates would be designed with small gaps. This would prevent the gates appearing as a solid mass. It would also allow views from the street, back towards the house, providing a degree of natural surveillance.

    For these reasons, the appeal proposal would be appropriate in appearance and materials in relation to this particular context. The CA would not be experienced differently as a consequence, nor would the significance of the CA affected.

    I therefore find that the proposed development would have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the CA and preserve its significance. The proposal therefore accords with Policies CDH01 and CDH08 of the LP. Together these seek to ensure that, among other things, developments respond sensitively to distinctive local character and that conservation areas are conserved and enhanced in a manner appropriate to their significance. 2 Totteridge Conservation Area Character Appraisal Statement adopted May 2008

  5. Section 06

    Conditions

    In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition to ensure that the materials used are those set out on the planning application form is not necessary.

  6. Section 07

    Conclusion

    The proposed development would adhere to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

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 564No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    22 July 2025Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    7 July 2025 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
6000025
Application reference
24/3413/HSE
Lead case reference
Not recorded
Planning authority
London Borough of Barnet
Planning authority code
E09000003

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
Not recorded
Appeal reason
refused
Type detail
No Application Type Assocaited
Jurisdiction
No Jurisdiction Associated
Link status
Not recorded

Site and development

Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.

Site area
0 hectares
Floor space
774 m²
Number of residences
Not recorded
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
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
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
27 November 2024
Valid date
27 November 2024
Start date
5 December 2024
Planning authority decision date
28 October 2024
Appeal decision date
22 July 2025

Case administration

Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.

Redetermined
Not recorded
Bespoke
Not recorded
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
Back Office
Dataset status
Current release
Catalogue record ID
73432
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