Appeal 3325565
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
front and side extensions plus extension of loft space with dormers to sides and rear.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling within a residential area. The site forms a corner plot at the junction between [address] and [address] and consequently the site occupies a prominent plot, accentuated by the rising land within [address]. Development in the area primarily consists of single-storey and chalet-style dwellings several of which have been altered and extended, including to the roofs to create first floor accommodation.
The proposed side extension and enlarged roof would significantly increase the bulk of the dwelling. The considerable depth and increased width would overwhelm the existing building and the disproportionate scale of the additions would harm the character of the host property.
The scale of the building would be accentuated by the deep flank wall adjacent to [address] and would be appreciable in views from [address]. The dormer windows would have a box-like appearance and would add to the significant scale of the proposal. The substantial mass would be further emphasised by the difference in land levels and the prominence of the site within the area.
The crown roof would ensure that the overall height of the dwelling is retained. However, the ridge line would be devoid of articulation and would emphasise the mass of the proposal. There are crown roofs in the locality, including at Nos 88, 89, 123 and [address]. However, these properties are not in such a prominent location being positioned within a row of dwellings where neighbouring dwellings obscure views of the roof form and the resulting bulk of the buildings.
I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area. The development therefore conflicts with Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Three Rivers District Council Core Strategy (2011) and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Three Rivers District Council Development Management Policies Local Development Document (2013), which collectively require proposals to be of a high standard of design having regard to the local context and respecting the distinctiveness of the surrounding area.
Section 05
Other Matters
I acknowledge that the proposal seeks to modernise the accommodation and provide improved internal space. However, this is largely a private benefit that would not outweigh the identified harm in respect of the character and appearance of the area and the resulting conflict with the development plan.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposal would not accord with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations, which would indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. 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 20880No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 13 December 2023Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 20 November 2023 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3325565
- Application reference
- 23/0625/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
- 39 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
- 7 July 2023
- Valid date
- 7 July 2023
- Start date
- 25 August 2023
- Planning authority decision date
- 14 June 2023
- Appeal decision date
- 13 December 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
- 43525
- 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