Appeal 6000088
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
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
roof extension involving raising of the ridge height, hip to gable with rear dormer window and 2no. front facing rooflights.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
For the purposes of my Decision and because this better describes the proposal, I have used the Council’s description of the proposed development, as set out in its
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal property comprises an end terrace dwelling within a small terrace of dwellings. Most notably, the roof form of this terrace is hipped at each end and connected with a consistent ridge line. This arrangement gives the roofscape of this terrace a uniform ridge line and symmetrical design. There are also other terraces within [site address] with similar roof forms. As such, the appeal property and its roof form contribute to a cohesive roofscape and street scene.
The proposed alterations and extensions are intended to provide an enlarged and more functional internal living space by converting the existing loft into a habitable living area. The main elements of the proposal include a hip to gable extension and rear dormer extension. Moreover, to allow for the required floor to ceiling height, the ridge of the existing roof would also need to be raised.
Notwithstanding the use of high quality matching materials, the proposed extensions and alterations, in particular the increase in ridge height, would appreciably extend and alter the roof of the appeal property. This would result in an asymmetrical roof form for the wider terrace and an erosion of its existing uniform and balanced appearance.
As such, the proposal would be an incongruous addition to the roofscape and street scene along [site address] . This would harm the character and appearance of the appeal property and area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), policies CS1 and CS5 of the [name] (2012) and policy DM01 of the Barnet Development Management Policies (2012). Together, these policies aim to secure high quality design in new developments that preserve or enhance local character.
Section 06
Other Matters
The appellant has submitted some information in respect of pending and approved planning applications within the borough, which relate to alterations to the roofs of properties. Nevertheless, I have insufficient information in respect of these which have been approved to draw any meaningful comparisons and conclusions.
The appellant asserts that parts of the proposal may be undertaken as permitted development. Even so, this is not a matter for me to determine in the context of an appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The scheme before me relates to the proposal in its entirety and I have determined the appeal on this basis.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the above reasons, I conclude that the 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 196No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 2 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
- 6000088
- Application reference
- 24/3728/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
- 200 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 21 January 2025
- Valid date
- 21 January 2025
- Start date
- 23 January 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 3 December 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 2 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
- 70385
- 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