Appeal 6000156
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
extension at the first floor front extension to align with neighbouring house.
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 semi-detached dwelling that is located in a predominantly residential area. There is some variation in design and style of housing, however, building lines generally follow a staggered set back pattern which results in rhythm and uniformity within the street scene.
The Council’s Residential Design Guidance SPD1 states that large front extensions will not normally be permitted because of their effect on the street scene and character of the area in general. Where it is considered that a building may reasonably be extended forward, care should be taken to ensure that front extensions have regard to, and do not conflict with, existing architectural features.
The proposed extension is small; however, it would bring forward the first floor set back to finish flush with the main front elevation, eroding the staggered building line. The host dwelling has also altered its roof which has resulted in the original side hip being a gable end. This would be replicated on the extension and result in a significant width which, combined with the erosion of the staggered building line would unbalance the pair of properties. 1 Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016
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 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 and the Residential Guidance SPD. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development respects local context and distinctive local character creating places and buildings of high quality design.
Section 05
Other Matters
The appellant has referred to 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 [address], this differs from the appeal proposal as while the building line is flush, there is a small sloping roof which generally mirrors the attached dwelling and does not unbalance the properties.
[address] is opposite the appeal site, but it is a detached dwelling with both properties either side being of a different style and design. This differs from the appeal site where the proposed development would result in the unbalancing of the pair of semi-detached properties.
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
- 6000156
- Application reference
- 24/5456/HS
- 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
- 525 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
- 10 March 2025
- Valid date
- 10 March 2025
- Start date
- 11 March 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 10 February 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
- 73436
- 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