Appeal 3369933
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
the erection of a first-floor side extension.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect the side extension would have on the character and appearance of No [site address] itself and of the local street scene within the context of the surrounding [site address] Conservation Area (CA).
Section 04
Reasons
The proposed first-floor side extension, set back over the existing single-storey attached garage, would achieve a relatively harmonious and subordinate visual relationship with the main dwelling when viewed and perceived strictly within the front elevation of the house. This would virtually mirror the front elevation of No 137 opposite, which shares the distinctive architectural style of the appeal property and several others around the adjacent junction of [address] with [address].
Importantly, however, due to its rearward extent and appropriately subordinate overall height, the extension would have a flat-topped or crown roof. This is not a feature visibly shared in any front or side extension added to No 137 or any of the neighbouring group of similar dwellings. A crown roof has only previously been permitted over a relatively unobtrusive rear extension to the appeal property itself.
In contrast with this, the crown roof would be publicly visible as a significant departure from the prevailing architectural form of the main host dwelling and the other similar properties nearby, where the subordinate elements do not appear to have a crown roof profile. This roof form is generally resisted in adopted Council design guidance and I consider, in the present case, would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of both No [site address] itself and the wider local street scene.
It follows that the proposed development would also fail to preserve or enhance either the character or appearance of the [site address] CA, the desirability of which is a long-established tenet of planning law. This amounts to less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset with no overriding public benefit, in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
For these reasons, I take the view that the proposed development would be in unacceptable conflict with the relevant Polices SP9, SP15 and SADM11, of the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council Local Plan with respect to design quality and the protection of designated heritage assets within the historic environment. These policies are all consistent with the NPPF.
I am aware that this proposal seeks to resolve the dismissal of a previous appeal for an extension to the property and I have taken account of every other point raised. However, there is nothing of such significance as to divert me from the conclusion, based upon the individual merits of the present case, that this 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 1576No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 3 November 2025Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 18 October 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3369933
- Application reference
- 6/2025/0848/HOUSE
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Welwyn Hatfield Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000241
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
- 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
- 25 July 2025
- Valid date
- 12 August 2025
- Start date
- 13 August 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 3 July 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 3 November 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
- 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
- 78928
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21