Appeal 3270152
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
7 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
described as a “proposed ground floor rear conservatory”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The Council has referred to policies in the emerging Local Plan. However, the Council has not provided information on the extent and content of any unresolved objections to the plan, nor how these may affect the policies to which it has referred. Therefore, whilst I have had regard to them, these policies carry limited weight.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site sits within a small cul-de-sac within a larger estate that is generally residential in character and contains a variety of style and size of property. The proposal seeks to erect a conservatory to the rear of the main dwelling.
The existing dwelling is larger than the other properties in the cul-de-sac, and indeed most of those that are in the vicinity of the appeal site. The property has benefitted from previous planning permissions to extend the building, which includes an existing conservatory attached to the rear of the dwelling. [name] acknowledge that the proposal seeks to remove the existing detached conservatory from the site, the proposed development nonetheless is much larger and adds additional bulk onto a building that has already been extensively enlarged.
Therefore, the existing building is quite large in comparison to its plot size and the extension of the dwelling through the proposed conservatory would only serve to exacerbate the overall massing of the dwelling. This would result in an unsympathetic addition that would be generally harmful to the host property and the character and appearance of the area, and would be clearly visible from surrounding dwellings.
Thus, the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be in conflict with Policies 28 and 57 of the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan 1996 and paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek, amongst other things, house extensions are sympathetic to the existing dwelling.
Section 06
Other Matters
I note the appellant’s desire to create a space with light and air for his elderly father to utilise. However, whilst acknowledging the benefits that would result in this respect, these are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified.
Representations were made by a neighbour raising additional concerns. However, given my findings on the main issues, it is not necessary to consider these matters in detail.
Section 07
Conclusion
Thus, for the reasons given above, I conclude that there are no material considerations of such weight as to indicate that a decision be taken other than in accordance with the development Plan. Therefore, the appeal is 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 361No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 July 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 June 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3270152
- Application reference
- 20/02902/FPH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- North Hertfordshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000099
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
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0.05 hectares
- Floor space
- 25 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 3 March 2021
- Valid date
- 17 March 2021
- Start date
- 23 April 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 25 January 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 12 July 2021
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- 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
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 558
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21