London Borough of Haringey appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Haringey?
See which Haringey proposals were found to harm character and appearance, and what the allowed outbuilding extract records.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 76 of 114
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 28
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 47
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 61
- of 76 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: Haringey LPA (51.590373, −0.10744). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
London Borough of Haringey appeal findings
How Haringey examples recorded character and appearance harm
The selected examples lean more heavily towards dismissed appeals than the matched local set. The dismissed extracts state conclusions without detailed reasoning. The allowed one does not explain its character assessment.
Counted against appeals
Character harm in dismissed Haringey cases
Front gates and railings found harmful
For the front gates and railings, the Inspector concluded that the proposal would harm the area’s character and appearance. The extract gives only that conclusion.
Rear dormer found materially harmful
For the full-width rear dormer, the Inspector concluded that it would materially harm the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. The extract does not explain why.
Extensions and roof changes found harmful
The wrap-around extension and bungalow roof alteration were each concluded to harm the area’s character and appearance. Neither extract provides further reasons.
Helped or needed
Allowed Haringey outbuilding evidence
No unacceptable neighbour harm accepted
In the allowed outbuilding case, the council accepted no unacceptable harm to neighbours’ living conditions. The extract does not set out the character or appearance assessment.
Marginal permitted-development excess recorded
The extract also says the structure only marginally exceeded permitted-development limits. It does not identify that point as the reason the appeal was allowed.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to your area’s character or appearance?
- Does it name a feature, such as a dormer, gate or roof alteration?
- Does it address neighbour living conditions separately from character and appearance?
The allowed Haringey outbuilding extract records neighbour conditions and permitted-development limits, but not the Inspector’s assessment of character or appearance. 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
8 May 2024 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
a rear outbuilding used as gym, home storage and office.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The council accept that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. It is also acknowledged that the structure only marginally exceeds permitted development limits. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision: APP/Y5420/D/24/3338683
Paragraph 4 · Source pages 1, 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
9 February 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
Erection of metal gates and railings to front garden.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In conclusion, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and as such does not accord with Policy DM1 of the Development Management, Development Plan Document (2017) and Policy SP11 of the Haringey Local Plan Strategic Policies (2017) which combined seek to achieve a high standard of design which contributes to the distinctive character and amenity of the local area, and which enhances the built environment.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
31 January 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
loft conversion with full width rear dormer and brick facing build up of party walls. Solar panels mounted to top of new dormer extension flat roof.
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 site and surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the development would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Policy D3 of The London Plan (2021), Policy SP11 of Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies 2013-2026 (2017) and Policies DM1 and DM12 of the Development Management DPD (2017) in as much as these seek to respect or enhance local context and character.
Paragraph 13 · Source page 2
13 October 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
described as construction of first floor wrap around side and rear extension with hipped roof.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. There is conflict with Policies DM1 and DM12 of the Haringey Development Management DPD (2017), Policy SP11 of the Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies 2013-2026 (2013, consolidated with alterations 2017), Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) which amongst other things seek to create a strong sense of place, achieve good design appropriate to the local context and site.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
26 September 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
roof extension to existing 2 bedroom bungalow to facilitate changes to internal layout with associated alterations to exterior treatment of building.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given, I find that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy DM1 of the Haringey Development Management DPD, Policy SP11 of Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies and the London Plan which seek to secure high quality developments, that respect local character and appearance of the area and relate positively to neighbouring structures.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2