Skip to main content
Official casework recordAllowedCurrent release

Appeal 3289148

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 works

One-off service · No subscription

Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.

Official decision document

The decision, section by section

8 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

Single storey rear extension and incorporating existing outbuildings into main dwelling.

  1. Section 02

    Decision

    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Single storey rear extension and incorporating existing outbuildings into main dwelling at [site address] , Moor Green Road, Ardeley, Stevenage, Hertfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/21/1482/HH, dated 2 June 2021, subject to the following conditions:

    The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: GA 001 P rev 0 GA 002 PL rev 0; GA 003 PL rev 0; GA 004 PL rev 0; GA 005 PL rev 01; GA 006 PL rev 0; GA 007 PL rev 0; GA 008 PL rev 0.

    All new external work and finishes and work of making good shall match existing original work adjacent in respect of materials used, detailed execution and finished appearance except where indicated otherwise on the drawings and application hereby approved.

  2. Section 03

    Procedural Matters

    The Council finds in its decision that there would be a neutral impact upon the character and appearance of the Ardeley Conservation Area. Nonetheless, Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that, in the exercise of the statutory duty, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area and so this shall remain part of my consideration.

  3. Section 04

    Main Issue

    The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the Ardeley Conservation Area (CA).

  4. Section 05

    Reasons

    The appeal site is mid-terraced two storey dwelling located at the edge of the [name]. It is a white painted rendered building, with a small outbuilding located to the rear. The dwelling benefits from a sizeable rear garden, set at an angle from the rear of the house. At the time of my site visit I was able to see a number of alterations being carried out to the neighbouring property. The proposed development would incorporate the existing outbuilding and provide a single storey extension to the rear of the dwelling. The development would provide a flat roof, with glazed doors to the rear and side elevations of the extension.

    The proposal, whilst unusual in its layout, makes use of the plot shape and size, and respects the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and takes its cues from the shape of the existing outbuilding and layout, and would not detract from the original character or appearance of the dwelling. The use of timber boarding and glazing to the southern and eastern elevations would help to clearly identify the proposed development as later additions, with the single storey nature of the development limiting the impact to the house and terrace as a whole, whilst retaining an adequate amount of garden space to the rear.

    Whilst the extension would be of a sizeable length, it remains within the confines of the space associated with the dwelling and its plot, and this combined with its limited height would respect the open nature of the local area. The proposal would be at best glimpsed and not easily visible from the street and would not interfere with the overall character and appearance of the CA, and whilst there is no positive enhancement or preservation, there is neither any harm identified to the CA. The scale of the development, being single storey and retained within the existing garden area would ensure that the plot and area would retain its open character. In addition to this, I was able to see the sporadic developments of smaller domestic budlings in the local area, such as garages and garden sheds, located beyond the extent of the development as proposed.

    I therefore conclude that the proposal would be consistent with the preservation of the character and appearance of the Ardeley Conservation Area. It would comply with Policy HA4 of the District Plan1, which expects that (amongst other things) extensions to existing buildings will be permitted provided that the preserve or enhance the special interest, character and appearance of the area, including being complementary and sympathetic to the parent building. There would also be no conflict with Policies DES4 and HOU11 of the District Plan which expect new development to be of high standard of design and layout to reflect and promote local distinctiveness, to be of size, scale, mass form, siting and design appropriate to the character appearance and setting of the existing dwelling and surrounding area. The development would also accord with Sections 12 and 16 of the Framework, relating to design and the historic environment. 1 East Herts District Plan (October 2018)

  5. Section 06

    Other Matters

    I note that there are concerns raised with regard to the impact of the development on sunlight to neighbouring gardens. Whilst the development would project beyond the existing outbuilding, it would remain of modest height and taking into account the orientation of the development on its own plot, would not impact on sunlight or outlook to occupiers of neighbouring properties.

  6. Section 07

    Conditions

    In addition to the standard timescale for implementation condition, it is necessary to attach a condition to confirm the approved drawings in the interests of certainty. Given the nature of the proposed development and its location within a Conservation Area, I have considered it necessary to attach conditions relating to the materials to be employed in the construction.

  7. Section 08

    Conclusion

    I have found neither harm to the setting of the Ardeley Conservation area nor the character and appearance of the host dwelling. I therefore conclude that, subject to the above conditions and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.

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 171No official casework-database value to compare
    Extracted decision date · page 1
    5 April 2022Matches the official casework database
    Extracted site visit dates
    14 February 2022 (page 1)

Reference and authority

Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.

Case reference
3289148
Application reference
3/21/1482/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
71 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
Allowed
Decision category
Allowed
Received date
15 December 2021
Valid date
15 December 2021
Start date
4 January 2022
Planning authority decision date
25 November 2021
Appeal decision date
5 April 2022

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
Not recorded
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
13527
First seen
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Last seen
20 August 2026 at 16:26
Removed from release
Not recorded
Record created
20 August 2026 at 14:24
Record updated
24 August 2026 at 16:21