Appeal 3361276
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
8 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 as the ‘demolition of existing single storey outbuilding, removal of existing conifer hedging, and erection of single storey rear extension and single storey outbuilding with glazed link, including the provision of a new patio and courtyard area.’
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Appeal Procedure
The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.
Section 04
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] (No.6) with particular regard to outlook.
Section 05
Reasons for the Recommendation
The rear garden of this mid-terraced property is angled and therefore partly extends to the rear of the neighbouring property resulting in a particularly small rear space serving No.6. A tall conifer hedge and fencing provides a boundary between the two properties. The appeal site benefits from an existing outbuilding situated alongside part of the boundary.
The proposal would introduce development along the entire boundary with No.6 albeit partly stepped in to create a courtyard that would act as a buffer. Nevertheless, the development would still create a substantial bulk to the rear of the property. The extension would be taller and have a greater footprint than the existing outbuilding. The looming effect of the height, proximity and run of the extension would appear overbearing to users of the rear space of No.6 and the outlook experienced from the ground floor rear windows. The scale of the proposed development would thus garner a strong sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No.6 where the existing situation is already poor.
The proposal would therefore harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.6 contrary to Policy DES4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018 which is concerned with avoiding detrimental impacts to the amenity of neighbouring occupants among other things.
Section 06
Other Matters
The extension would not be as tall as the conifer hedge in parts, but it would be the cause of the above harm on its own merits and the hedge would be removed as part of the totality of the works in any case. Whilst the stepping in of the glazed aspect of the extension would provide some alleviation, this, nor revisions from a previously refused scheme, would be sufficient to overcome the harms I have found.
Section 07
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.
Section 08
Inspector’s Decision
I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis 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 1895No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 June 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 29 April 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3361276
- Application reference
- 3/24/1888/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
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- No
- Historic building grant made
- No
- Relates to a conservation area
- No
- Flooding is an issue
- No
- Site within an AONB
- No
- Site within an SSSI
- No
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 24 February 2025
- Valid date
- 26 February 2025
- Start date
- 5 March 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 3 December 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 3 June 2025
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
- 70467
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21