Appeal 3282547
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
No verified development description has been extracted from an official decision PDF yet.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
[name]
The main issue is the impact of the proposals upon the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal property is a part of a relatively unusually designed collection of houses that utilise similar architectural devices of long, low pitched roofs and what I consider could be vernacular inspired modern forms of domestic architecture. The properties are for the most part in terrace blocks with staggered building lines and a subtle hierarchy in elevational detail. The roofs extend to ground floor level on several properties before setting back at intervals revealing first floor windows.
The appeal property itself is located within the cul de sac that is [address] and forms the end terrace property within one of these blocks of houses. As mentioned above there is some subtle diversity within the streetscene where some properties either protrude forward or backward of the building line and where some are rendered thereby offering something of a contrast to the predominant material of brick.
The proposal before me wishes to extend the two storey element of the building forward to bring it in line with the protruding catslide type roof over the ground floor part of the house. In so doing the proposal would somewhat alter the rhythm of the block of houses to which it belongs and introduce a larger, protruding element with a hipped roof to its front. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: APP/B1930/D/21/3282547
In assessing this appeal, I consider that there the diversity within the streetscene could allow some highly contextual extensions to be successful. Similarly, I appreciate that some architectural cues have been taken from the original design of the houses in the form of the proposed extension. Despite this however, the proposal, through protruding forward at such scale with the rather narrow and contrived hipped roof to the front, would cause harm to the character and appearance of the existing houses and the streetscene here.
[name] consider that there could be ways to extend this property without causing such harm, the proposal before me would begin to undermine what I consider is a defining element of the design intent here. As such I consider the proposal would be contrary to Policies 69 and 72 of the [site address] District Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, both of which seek to achieve proposals that are of high quality design and that respond well to the character and appearance of an area.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons above, taking into account all other matters raised, I dismiss the appeal.
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 decision date · page 1
- 13 December 2021Differs from the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 17 November 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3282547
- Application reference
- 5/21/1385
- 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
- 108 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
- 8 September 2021
- Valid date
- 8 September 2021
- Start date
- 19 October 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 23 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 16 December 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
- 7764
- 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