Appeal 3321313
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
4 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
first floor front link extension, infill front extension and front and rear dormers.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main issue
I consider that the main issue in this case is its effect on the character and appearance of the area.
Section 04
Reasons
[site address] is a two storey detached house formed of two sections linked at ground floor level on an L-shaped footprint. The eastern part was formed into a granny annex by converting the original garage and constructing an upper floor above. It is located at the end of a cul-de-sac with five other properties (Nos. 6-10) to the northeast and southeast, closely grouped around a spur road off the head of the cul-de-sac.
I consider that the relevant policies in this case are CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2006-2031 (the [name]) and [name] 7 of the Dacorum Local Plan 1991-2011 (the local plan). These relate to the quality of neighbourhood and site design in terms of several criteria including scale, height and visual intrusion and the construction of dormer windows.
The Council raised no objection to the proposed first floor link extension, the infill front extension or the front dormers and I see no reason to disagree with this view.
The proposed rear dormer would extend most of the width of the eastern section of the house and would be set down from the ridgeline. However, the submitted plans indicate that the set back above the eaves would be minimal and it would appear as though the main wall of the dormer would be in a similar plane to that of the main wall of the house, thus adding to the impression of disproportionate height and bulk. This proposal is a reduction in size from a previous scheme which extended across more of the width of the roof. However, I consider that, although it is smaller, it would still be a very large and bulky element in proportion to the house itself and would have a visually dominant impact on the street scene near the house.
The layout of this group of houses is very compact, and although the dormer is nominally on the rear elevation of No. 5, it effectively fronts onto a short street and directly faces the front elevations of other houses in the group across a short distance of approximately 11 metres. The size, design and location of this large dormer would appear out of proportion with the house itself and in the context of the closely spaced group of houses.
The appellants have drawn my attention to rear dormer windows in the surrounding area. I do not have any information regarding the circumstances under which these were permitted and I have considered this case on its own merits according to individual circumstances.
I conclude that the proposed rear dormer window would harm the character and appearance of the existing house and the street scene, contrary to policies CS11 and CS12 of the [name] and [name] 7 of the local plan.
For the reasons given above, the appeal is 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 764No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 25 October 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 October 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3321313
- Application reference
- 23/00451/FHA
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Dacorum Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000096
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 1 May 2023
- Valid date
- 1 May 2023
- Start date
- 29 June 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 20 April 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 25 October 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
- 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
- 40837
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:27
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21