Appeal 3274469
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
4 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
a first floor extension above existing double garage.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
Policy HOU11 in the East Herts District Plan (2018) generally requires residential extensions to be subservient additions. In addition, it seeks to ensure that side extensions at first floor level or above ensure appropriate space is left between the flank wall of an extension and the common curtilage with a neighbouring property to safeguard the character and appearance of the street scene and prevent a visually damaging ‘terracing’ effect. As a general rule a space of one metre is the minimum acceptable. Policy DES4 seeks a high standard of design and layout.
The appeal property is a modern two-storey dwelling situated in a corner of a small residential cul-de-sac. Modern dwellings of similar design in close proximity to each other are a characteristic of this cul-de-sac. The single-storey garages break up the built form at first floor level in an area of high density development.
The ridgeline of the proposed first floor extension would be set down from the main ridge by some 0.5 metres. It would be clad in fibre cement weatherboarding. It would have a half hipped roof to match the existing roof, incorporating two pitched roof dormers on the south elevation. No gap is proposed between the flank wall of the proposed first floor extension and the party boundary with No [address]. As such, due to the size, design and location of the proposal it would appear as an excessively bulky extension to the dwelling. This would not be a subservient addition. [name] appreciate that the proposal would not be widely visible, the close proximity to No. [address] would create an unacceptably cramped form of development in this corner of the cul-de-sac.
There is weatherboarding on part of the first floor of the neighbouring property at No. [address]. Therefore, the proposed use of weatherboarding would be in keeping with the appearance of this corner of the cul-de-sac. However, in the light of my concerns above, this does not justify allowing the appeal.
In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised upon which I have not made specific comment, including examples of extensions to other properties in [address]. Those extensions are not in such a confined location as the proposal before me. I have determined the proposal on its individual merits. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to District Plan Policies HOU11 and DES4. I consider these policies to be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework where they seek to ensure good design.
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 1172No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 12 July 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 7 July 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3274469
- Application reference
- 3/20/2502/HH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- East Hertfordshire District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000242
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
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- Not recorded
- 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
- 11 March 2021
- Valid date
- 11 April 2021
- Start date
- 17 June 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 3 February 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
- 579
- 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