Appeal 3276500
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
5 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 proposed loft conversion with rear dormer and existing roof ridge raised.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site relates to a mid-terrace property sited on [address]. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature, with some commercial outlets on the opposite side of the public highway. The proposal comprises an increase in the ridge of the roof and rear dormer window to create habitable attic accommodation.
I saw at my site visit that the adjoining property at 168a Hatfield has a higher ridge line, with a steeper roof pitch, and the front slope contains a small pitched dormer window; overall the roof form is considerably larger than the appeal dwelling. There are myriad roof shapes in the vicinity, of varying size, design and detailing. Within this context, to my mind the principle of altering the roof form of the appeal dwelling could be acceptable and need not appear incongruous.
However, I consider that incorporating the increase in roof height into the mass and bulk of the rear dormer window would not be an appropriate solution. This would result in an element that would dominate the roof of the property. It would be clearly visible from the private amenity spaces of surrounding houses, having a jarring effect by virtue of its scale and extent across the roof of the dwelling. The dormer would lack subservience to the new ridge line, and there would be no separation from the party wall no. 168a. _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________
I therefore conclude that the scheme would be harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policies 69 and 72 of the [site address] District Local Plan Review 1994, which require development to account for the scale and character of the surroundings and be compatible with the original building. The proposal is also inconsistent with the advice the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.
Section 05
Conclusion
Based on my reasoning above and all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be 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 212No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 October 2021Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 23 September 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3276500
- Application reference
- 5/2021/0957
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- St Albans City Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000240
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
- 16 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 5 June 2021
- Valid date
- 5 June 2021
- Start date
- 26 August 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 May 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 18 October 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
- 4766
- 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