London Borough of Barnet appeal evidence
Refused over permitted development in Barnet?
Learn which Barnet extension facts feature in selected decisions and which checks to make.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 22 of 487
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 8
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 14
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 19
- of 22 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 rear extensions: width and ground level
The selected examples have a different outcome mix from the matched local set, and the allowed extract offers limited detail.
Counted against appeals
Where Barnet rear extensions fell short
Side elevation and house width
The extracts conclude that extensions beyond a side elevation and over half the original dwellinghouse width were not permitted development.
Garage inclusion did not solve width
Even including a side garage, the drawings showed the rear enlargement exceeded half the dwellinghouse width.
Raised patio was not ground level
The Inspector treated the garden as natural ground level, rather than the raised patio behind the property.
Helped or needed
What supported Class A compliance
Materials reflected existing dwelling
The allowed extract says the proposed external materials would reflect the existing dwelling.
Window and door did not decide it
No evidence suggested the proposed window and door would not be permitted development, so they were not determinative in the prior-approval assessment.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal say the rear extension exceeds half the original dwellinghouse width?
- Which surface is treated as natural ground level rather than a patio?
- Does the refusal give evidence about proposed windows, doors or external materials?
The displayed extracts concern rear extensions, so they may not address other GPDO proposals. 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
1 example
21 May 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a single storey rear extension with a proposed depth of 4.07 metres, an eaves height of 2.85 metres, and a maximum height of 4.00 metres.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, I find that the proposed external materials would reflect the existing dwelling. Also, there is no evidence before me to suggest that the proposed window and door on the original dwelling would not be permitted development. As such their inclusion on the proposed plan is not determinative of my assessment of the application for prior approval. Based on the evidence before me the proposed extension would be permitted development within the terms of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
26 May 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
6M single-storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposed development would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO).
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, in the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, I conclude that the proposed extension would extend beyond a side elevation of original house and would be more than half the width of the original dwellinghouse, the appeal scheme would not comply with the definition of permitted development set by the Order.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
25 May 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Single storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issues is whether the proposed development would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO).
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, I conclude that the proposed extension would extend beyond a side elevation of original house and would be more than half the width of the original dwellinghouse, the appeal scheme would not comply with the definition of permitted development set by the Order.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
10 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described on the application form as, “single storey rear extension”.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether sufficient information has been provided to establish whether the proposed development would be permitted development under Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The area of garden to the rear of the site clearly constitutes the natural ground level on site. The surface level has however been artificially raised by the incorporation of a patio to the rear of No 59. In this regard, the Permitted development rights for householders: Technical Guidance (published 2019) clarifies that ground level would not include any addition laid on top of the ground such as decking.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 2
1 May 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as ‘Prior Approval Application for [name] 6m Extension, [name] and [name]
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is whether the proposal would be granted planning permission by Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO).
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The dimensions provided on the drawings show that the width of the proposed rear enlargement would be greater than half the width of the dwellinghouse, even if the side garage were included. Therefore, whether or not the garage was part of the original dwellinghouse is not determinative for this appeal. Even if the side garage Appeal Planning Officer 6003117 was original, the proposed rear enlargement would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. Consequently, the development would not comply with A.1(j) and therefore would not be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.
Paragraph 12 · Source pages 2, 3