Skip to main content
Official casework recordDismissedCurrent release

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 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

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.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is dismissed.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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