Appeal 6000146
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
proposed detached car port and extending existing porch canopy.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and host property.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a large, detached house that is set within a sizable plot. Rowley Green Road is predominantly residential with similar sized properties that are also set within large plots. Development is mostly concentrated on the same side of the road as the appeal site with a golf course on the opposite side of the road. Dwellings are set back from the road by a wide grass verge and open frontages. This, combined with the open space provided by the golf course, trees and vegetation that line the road results in a distinctly open, spacious and verdant character and appearance.
The proposed garage would be located to the front of the property, close to the grass verge. The frontages of properties along Rowley Green Road are mostly free from any development and therefore the proposal, due to its overall size and position would stand out as an incongruous feature that would be unsympathetic to the host dwelling.
I acknowledge the existing landscaping and vegetated frontage as well as the proposals open sided design. However, the overall size and position of the proposed development, particularly in the context of the undeveloped and open frontages would remain prominent.
I note that the appellant considers that the wider area should be taken into account, however, Rowley Green Road has its own distinctive character through its undeveloped frontages, which is not a feature shared with other streets nearby.
I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and host property. It would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document September 2012, Policy DM01 of the Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document September 2012, Policy CDH01 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 [name] 2025 and the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development conserves and enhances the distinctiveness of Barnet, respects local context and distinctive local character and ensure attractive streets.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has referred to several other developments in an attempt to justify the appeal proposal. I do not have the full details in respect of such examples so I cannot be sure of the circumstances. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.
In regard to the examples of development given for various properties on Barnet Road1. While there are examples or extant permissions for garages to the front of properties, [address] has a different character and appearance to Rowley Green Road. [address] has a denser concentration of houses on both sides of the road with the gaps between properties and their frontage sizes being smaller. The denser built form results in these garages not standing out as incongruous features within the street scene.
In regard to [address] and [address], these are dwellings located in a small cul-de-sac where properties are located in modest size plots at a higher density, which do not have the same open character and appearance as the appeal site.
In respect of [name], this is located along a small road off [address] which has a number of terraced properties that line the road and have little or no frontage which differs compared to the open character and appearance of the appeal site.
Section 06
Conclusion
For the reasons given above 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 4347No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 July 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 2 July 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6000146
- Application reference
- 24/4506/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
- 900 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
- 27 February 2025
- Valid date
- 27 February 2025
- Start date
- 4 March 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 7 January 2025
- 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
- 73434
- 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