Appeal 6000086
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
new rear dormer to include bedroom with ensuite and associated front dormer to accommodate new internal stair.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new rear dormer to include bedroom with ensuite and associated front dormer to accommodate new internal stair at [site address] , Barnet, Edgware [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 24/4369/HSE and subject to the following conditions:
This development must be begun within three years from the date of this permission.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and drawings: Site Location and Layout Plan – Drawing: MiL-PL-001A [name]; [name]: Drawings: MiL-PL-004A Rev 01 and MiL-PL-005A Rev 01 and [name] – Drawing: MiL-PL - 006A, Rev 01.
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in materials that match those of the existing building.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property comprises a semi-detached dwelling. The surrounding area is characterised by similar two-storey semi-detached dwellings and some detached dwellings.
Most of these properties include front projecting gables, which incorporate entrances and a mock Tudor finish. These provide a degree of symmetry between pairs of dwellings and a general cohesiveness to the street scene.
However, some of these properties, including the appeal property and the adjoining semi-detached dwelling have been subject to some alterations and extensions to the sides. As such, and beyond the projecting mock Tudor gables there are some differences in respect of the front elevations, including the roofs of these properties. From the rear garden of the appeal property, I observed that nearby dwellings have also been altered along their rear elevations and some feature sizeable rear dormers.
Consequently, the appearance of the appeal property and other nearby dwellings has been personalised to some extent, which also informs the character and appearance of the area.
To facilitate the proposed bedroom with ensuite, the main elements of the proposal include front and rear dormer extensions.
The front dormer would only extend about halfway down the front roof slope of the appeal property and is designed to be setback from this. Although this dormer would result in an increased ridge height, this would be limited to only part of the roof and does not exceed the existing maximum ridge height of the appeal property. In terms of its appearance, this dormer would largely be finished in tiles to match the existing roof and features a relatively small window.
Therefore, and despite being visible from Green Lane, because of its modest size and acceptable appearance, the front dormer would be a subordinate and subtle addition to the roof of the appeal property. This would not unduly detract from the overall form and appearance of the appeal property or unacceptably compromise the extent of symmetry between this and the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. Consequently, and although front dormers are not a prevalent feature of the immediate area, due to its considered scale and design, the proposed front dormer would not undermine the wider street scene.
Whilst the proposed rear dormer would also increase the ridge height of part of the main roof, this would also not extend above the maximum ridge height of the appeal property. Furthermore, this rear dormer would be set in from the sides and eaves of the rear roof and marginally exceeds half the width of the existing roof. This width of the rear dormer aligns with the windows below. Also, its half hipped form limits its massing and would complement the contemporary design of a planned ground floor rear extension.
Due to the above siting and design considerations, the rear dormer would be a proportionate addition to the appeal property, which would assimilate with its rear roof form and elevation.
Consequently, the siting, scale and appearance of the proposed dormers would not detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property or area. In undertaking my assessment of the appeal scheme and reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: Residential Design Guidance, which includes advice on the design of dormer extensions.
For the above reasons, the proposal accords with Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document, September 2012. Amongst other things, this Policy says that development proposals should be based on an understanding of local characteristics. That proposals should preserve or enhance local character and respect the appearance, scale, mass, height and pattern of surrounding buildings, spaces and streets.
Section 05
Conditions
In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the requirements of the Planning Practice Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework. In addition to the standard timescale condition for the implementation of the planning permission, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans and drawings in the interests of certainty.
To ensure that the development positively contributes to the appeal property and the character and appearance of the area, I have specified a condition requiring that the external materials for the proposal match those of the appeal property.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be 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 196No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 5 June 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 April 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6000086
- Application reference
- 24/4369/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
- 477 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
- 20 January 2025
- Valid date
- 20 January 2025
- Start date
- 22 January 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 December 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 5 June 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
- 70647
- 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