London Borough of Barnet appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Barnet?
See how selected Barnet decisions treated rooflines, building lines and extension bulk.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 376 of 487
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 181
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 191
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 320
- of 377 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Barnet LPA (51.616031, −0.209984). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Barnet appeal findings
Barnet roof alterations and building lines
The selected examples lean more towards allowed decisions than the matched local set. The dismissed decision gives a final conclusion without the detail behind it.
Counted against appeals
Side extensions and building lines
Side extension and building lines
The Inspector concluded that this side extension harmed the surrounding area. The extract says it failed guidance aimed at avoiding two-storey work beyond existing building lines.
Helped or needed
Roof form and extension bulk
Road-facing gables remained dominant
The offset ridge was secondary to road-facing gables. Keeping those gables would retain the pair's scale and design.
Street-facing bulk stayed limited
The extension would be no higher than the existing ridge and would not extend beyond the outer wall. Matching facing materials would integrate it with the roof.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal notice identify work beyond the building line?
- Does it explain whether road-facing gables would remain dominant?
- Does it address ridge height, outer-wall projection and facing materials?
The dismissed extract gives only a conclusion, not the earlier reasons, so it cannot identify the exact design detail behind the harm. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
4 examples
9 February 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
alteration and extension to roof involving rear dormer window and 2no. front facing rooflights, raising of main roof ridge and changes to ground floor rear fenestration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, therefore, the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore comply with Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021-2036 (adopted 2025) which require development proposals to respond sensitively to local character and design, notably building and roof form, and to complement the character of the existing building, particularly in terms of style, form and materials. It would also comply with Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) which requires development to be of high quality.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
5 December 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
roof extension involving partial hip to gable with rear dormer windows and 2no. front facing rooflights.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would see the main ridge extended to one side. This would mean that it would be offset. However, at my visit I saw that this ridge is very much secondary to the prominent road facing gables. These features would remain and would be sufficient to retain a sense of the scale and design of the original pair of dwellings, and to safeguard the character and appearance of the road.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
29 August 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as: Roof extension involving rear dormer window and front rooflights.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposed development does not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would comply with the relevant requirements of Policies CS1 and CS5 of the [name] and Policy DM01 of the Barnet Development Management Policies Development Plan Document.
Paragraph 14 · Source page 3
22 June 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘[name] to [name].
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
When viewed from the streetscape on [address], the appeal proposal would not appear excessively bulky as it would extend no higher than the height of the existing ridge line and, as mentioned previously, it would not extend beyond the outer wall of the property. Furthermore, matching facing materials would be used to ensure the extension will integrate with the existing roof structure effectively.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
1 example
9 July 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as the erection of a first floor side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the above reasons, I conclude that the development has an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Therefore, the development conflicts with [name], CS1, and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document (2012); Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document (2012); and, D3 of The London Plan. Together, amongst other things, these require that development achieve high-quality design which respects local context. The development also fails to adhere to the guidance contained within the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: The Residential Design Guide (2016) which seeks to avoid two-storey developments which protrude beyond existing building lines.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2