Appeal 3342992
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
described on the application form as “Proposed second storey extension above an existing porch way, in order to extend a very small bedroom.”
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main issue
The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the character and appearance of the locality and streetscene.
Section 04
Reasons
Properties in the part of Elmwood within which the appeal site is located are characteristically semi-detached with single storey front projections such as in the case of the host dwelling. In consequence, the streetscene has a fairly high degree of consistency and uniformity. However, the proposed development would add another storey on top of this. Despite there being no increase in footprint and even if subservient to the host dwelling, in this context the addition, with a street facing gable end at first floor level, would be particularly unusual. As a result, it would be a visually intrusive and incongruous feature unacceptably out of keeping with the rhythm of the street.
The Appellant refers to other properties in Parkway and Yewlands and has provided photographs. Nevertheless, these are in other streets and not part of the setting within which the visual impact of the extension would be apparent. In any event, I have not been provided with any background details and do not know why any planning permissions were granted. As a result, no meaningful comparison can be made with the current proposal and there is nothing to show that the Council’s decision making has been inconsistent.
For these reasons, it is concluded that the development would harm the character and appearance of the locality and the streetscene. As a result, there would be conflict with Policies DES4 and HOU11 of the East Herts District Plan 2018. Taken together and, among other things, these policies indicate that development must be of a high standard of design that reflects and promotes local distinctiveness while being of a form, design and size appropriate to the setting of the existing dwelling.
In the National Planning Policy Framework, it is indicated that decisions should ensure that developments satisfy a number of considerations. These include that the proposed development should add to the overall quality of the area, as well as being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character, which would not be achieved in this case.
Local residents and the Town Council have raised no objections to the proposal. Nevertheless, this does not, in itself, confer acceptability on the proposal and I must consider this appeal on its own merits.
The Council considers that the proposed cladding to the extension would be appropriate. However, this is a neutral factor that weighs neither for nor against the appeal. In this case the enlarged bedroom would be achieved at the unacceptable expense of the quality of the built environment in Elmwood.
Taking account of all other matters raised and given the harm that would result the appeal 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 8No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 19 June 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 11 June 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3342992
- Application reference
- 3/24/0290/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
- 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
- 22 April 2024
- Valid date
- 22 April 2024
- Start date
- 15 May 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 10 April 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 19 June 2024
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
- 52769
- 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