Appeal 3312575
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
6 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
described in the application form as follows: “Rear double storey extension; first floor extension to be set back from ground floor extension; size of first floor is dictated by relation to neighbouring window with respect for right for light; materials to match”.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the “erection of part single and part two-storey rear extensions with additional windows to first floor rear elevation and ground and first floor side elevations”, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 3/22/1368/HH, dated 29 June 2022), subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule of Conditions.
Section 03
Preliminary points
Notwithstanding the description of the application that was given in the application form, the nature of the proposal can more clearly be expressed as set out in the Council’s decision notice and in the appeal form, as the “erection of part single and part two-storey rear extensions with additional windows to first floor rear elevation and ground and first floor side elevations”.
Section 04
Main issue
The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings.
Section 05
Reasons
Ware is an important town in Hertfordshire with a range of services and facilities and extensive residential areas. The appeal site is located in a residential suburb in the northern part of the town. Dovedale is located in a Appeal Decision: APP/J1915/D/22/3312575 relatively dense part of the residential suburb, characterised by houses in short terraces, in residential streets and culs-de-sac, with some designated garage and parking areas.
The existing house at 16 Dovedale is located at the end of a short terrace of four two-storey houses, constructed in a conventional style, with small front gardens and longer back gardens. The terrace faces a cul-de-sac that is surrounded by similar properties. There is a small garage courtyard behind numbers 19 to 23 Dovedale but number 17 has a longer garden, although it narrows markedly towards the rear. Number 17, then, has a long side boundary, defined by a close-boarded fence, alongside the highway that gives access to the head of the cul-de-sac.
It is now proposed to construct an extension at the rear of the existing house, with a single storey section across the width of the rear elevation, combined with a two-storey section on the corner of the building. In addition, new windows would be created in the side gable elevation of the house, to light the centre of the building.
The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities. The achievement of good design standards includes both protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation in new development.
Those basic principles are also established by the Development Plan. In particular, Section 17 of the ‘East Herts District Plan’ (dated October 2018) is concerned with “Design and Landscape” and it is aimed at respecting or improving upon existing surroundings while making good use of urban land and accommodating changing needs. Policy HOU11 provides more specific criteria in relation to residential extensions and alterations (and the like).
In this case, the proposed two-storey part of the extension would increase the length of the flank wall of the existing house. The gable form would be maintained, however, with a subservient rearward extension that would have its eaves facing the boundary. Additional windows in the flank wall, facing the road, would also enliven the elevation and help to make the finished building more harmonious in the streetscene. The proposed two-storey extension would, moreover, project from the main rear elevation of the existing building only by a relatively limited amount, whereas the single-storey part of the extension would project further.
In itself, the single-storey part of the extension would have only a very limited impact on its surroundings and it is not objectionable.
Nor would the scheme as a whole have an undue impact on the amenities of neighbours, because of the limited height of the proposed single-storey element and the fact that the two-storey section would be set away from the joint boundary with the neighbour, as explained in the submissions. 2 Appeal Decision: APP/J1915/D/22/3312575
I am convinced that the proposed two-storey extension would not be odd or out of character with either the host building or its surroundings and I accept that the surrounding area can satisfactorily accommodate such a change as that which is now proposed. The appeal scheme would amount to a modest extension to the existing dwelling but it would provide useful additional space and would, thereby, add to the stock of residential accommodation in the locality, albeit in a very limited way.
In short, I have concluded that the project would not be in conflict with the national legislation or the Development Plan, in principle, and that it is acceptable in planning terms. I am persuaded that the scheme before me can properly be permitted and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.
I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and, in imposing conditions, I have taken account of the conditions suggested by the Council in the usual way (without prejudice to their main arguments in the appeal). Conditions are necessary, of course, to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained.
Section 06
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: drawing number 271 PL001 revision A (Site and [name]); drawing number 271 PL100 revision B ([name]); drawing number 271 PL101 revision C ([name]); drawing number 271 PL200 revision C ([name]); drawing number 271 PL201 revision C ([name]).
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4
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 285No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 28 February 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 February 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3312575
- Application reference
- 3/22/1368/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
- Unknown
- 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
- 271 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
- 6 December 2022
- Valid date
- 6 December 2022
- Start date
- 6 January 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 30 September 2022
- Appeal decision date
- 28 February 2023
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
- 28988
- 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