Appeal 3292114
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
loft conversion including side and rear dormer with 500mm increase in roof height.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Procedural Matter
The boundary of the Oxhey Hall Conservation Area adjoins the bottom of the rear garden to [site address] but given the distance between the house and the boundary of the Conservation Area, it is not necessary to assess the proposal in terms of Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Section 04
Main Issue
I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 05
Reasons
The appeal site is a detached house located in an elevated position on [address]. The houses along the road are varied in character although No 48 seems to be similar in design to Nos 50 and 52, both of which have been extended and altered but differently to that proposed for No 48.
The proposal would alter the shape of the roof from a hipped roof to a half-hip (or barn-hip or Dutch-hip) and a gable roof to a forward hipped projection. The roof would also be raised and dormers windows would be added to the side and rear. These alterations would significantly alter the appearance of the house.
Core Strategy1 Policy CP12 establishes that the Council expect all development to have regard to local context and conserve or enhance the character, amenities and quality of an area, amongst other things. Development Management Policies Document2 Policy DM1 requires all residential development to satisfy the design criteria in Appendix 2. Amongst other things, this requires extensions not to be excessively prominent in relation to adjacent dwellings or the street scene and to respect the character of the property/street scene particularly with regard to roof form. I have also considered the National Planning Policy Framework3 which also supports good design.
The proposed increase in roof height would be relatively modest but together with the altered shape of the roof and the added dormers would appear cumbersome and top heavy, adding bulk and massing at roof level that would harm the character and style of the existing dwelling.
[name] note that other properties have been extended and altered in the area and raising the roof for example, would in itself have a minimal impact, the cumulative effect of the roof alterations would be out of keeping with the overall design and character of the existing house. This would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area, especially highlighted due to the prominent elevated position of the house.
I have considered all other matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with policies CP12 and DM1 together with the design criteria in Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies Document. The appeal therefore fails.
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 226No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 14 April 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 1 April 2022 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3292114
- Application reference
- 21/2335/FUL
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Three Rivers District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000102
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
- 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
- 3 February 2022
- Valid date
- 3 February 2022
- Start date
- 16 February 2022
- Planning authority decision date
- 6 December 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 14 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
- 14011
- 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