®Planning appeal decision
38 Elmcroft Crescent, London, NW11 9SY
Planning appeal 3358758 at 38 Elmcroft Crescent, London, NW11 9SY (London Borough of Barnet) was allowed in part (a split decision) on 18 July 2025 by Inspector Howell M, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Whether EN2, issued on 4 December 2024 under section 171B(4)(b) of the 1990 Act, was concerned with the same breach of planning control as that alleged in EN1 issued on 17 February 2022.
without planning permission, the construction of a single storey rear extension (as edged in red); the construction of a part first -floor side and part roof and dormer extension (as edged in blue); and the making of a material change of use of the house to use as seven self-contained flats
- Authority
- London Borough of Barnet
- Appeal type
- enforcement · Enforcement Notice
- Procedure
- Inquiry
- Development
- residential · Change of use
- Inspector
- Howell M
- Postcode
- NW11 9SY
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether EN2, issued on 4 December 2024 under section 171B(4)(b) of the 1990 Act, was concerned with the same breach of planning control as that alleged in EN1 issued on 17 February 2022.
- Whether the appellant has taken steps to deliberately conceal the existence of the alleged seven self-contained flats and the unauthorised extensions.
- Whether or not the relevant enforcement notice was issued after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the alleged operations were substantially completed.
- Whether the use alleged has been continuous for a period of four years or more without significant interruption beginning with the relevant date of the breach.
What decided it
The appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the extensions and three of the seven flats (units 1, 2 and 6) were substantially complete/continuously used more than four years before EN1 was issued, so immunity was not established for those elements.
What the Inspector cited
- Judgments
- Jarmain v SSETR & Welwyn Hatfield DC [2000] EWCA Civ 126; Fidler v FSS & Reigate and Banstead BC [2004] EWCA Civ 1295; Lambrou v SSCLG [2013] EWHC 325 (Admin); Welwyn Hatfield v SSCLG v Beesley [2011] UKSC 15; Jackson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 20 Admin
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in London Borough of Barnet
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025
- Notice varied and upheld29 September 2026335964435 Hillview Gardens, London, NW4 2JJ
- Notice upheld28 August 2026336160153 Essex Park, London, N3 1ND
- Notice varied and upheld27 August 2026336134827 Dale Grove, London, N12 8EE
- Notice upheld26 August 2026337608848 Oldberry Road, Edgware, HA8 9DB
- Notice upheld18 August 20263337532140A Sydney Road, London, N10 2RN
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.