Appeal 3321543
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
a hip to gable with 2 storey and single storey side and rear extension with rear dormer.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the local area.
Section 04
Reasons
There is some variety along the length of the [address] frontage, but it is predominantly made up of large, semi-detached dwellings. These are set back from the road behind a consistent building line. The appeal property is an anomaly in that it is detached, but it shares many of the common features which make the properties in this part of the street distinctive, including the double height bay windows and hipped roofs.
The proposed additions to the side and rear of the dwelling, along with the rear dormer and roof extension, would add substantial bulk and mass to the host dwelling. Taken in combination, the various extensions would represent a disproportionate addition to the host dwelling and would lack visual subordinance. The side extension would be set off the boundary with No 10, but its tiered roof structure would have an incongruous and awkward appearance, particularly when viewed from [address]. The design of the development overall would be unsympathetic to the existing building, and it would detract from local distinctiveness.
In support of the appeal, my attention was drawn to the two-storey rear extension and rear dormer at [address], which I saw from the appeal site on my site visit. I do not know the background to this development but in any event its appearance and massing is not directly comparable to the design of the appeal scheme, which would feature a more contrived arrangement of different roof forms.
I conclude that the proposed development would cause material harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. This would be contrary to policies QD6.2 and QD6.4 of A Sustainable Town: Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 which, amongst other things, requires development to reflect local character and relate to local context.
Section 05
Conclusion
For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be 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 6773No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 18 September 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 22 August 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3321543
- Application reference
- 23/00192/FULH
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Watford Borough Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000103
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
- 53 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
- 4 May 2023
- Valid date
- 4 May 2023
- Start date
- 7 July 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 19 April 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 18 September 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
- 38895
- 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