Dacorum Borough Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in Dacorum?
Learn which selected local proposals were found harmful and which rear extension was found acceptable.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 63 of 110
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 15
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 46
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 60
- of 63 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Dacorum LPA (51.778195, −0.540893). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Dacorum Borough Council appeal findings
Dacorum streetscape harm from gates, extensions and render
The selected examples lean more toward dismissals than the matched local set. Most extracts are conclusion-only, and the allowed example also concerns a Conservation Area.
Counted against appeals
Where proposals harmed streetscapes
New front gate
The Inspector concluded that the new front gate would harm the surrounding area’s character and appearance.
Conversion, extensions and porch
The Inspector concluded that the garage conversion, extensions and porch would unacceptably harm the area’s character and appearance.
Brick replaced with render
The Inspector concluded that changing the external finish from brick to render would harm the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Rear extension: no harm found
Conservation Area preserved
The Inspector concluded that the rear extension would preserve the Conservation Area’s character and appearance and cause no unacceptable harm.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify harm to street character or appearance?
- Does it say whether a gate, extension or finish causes it?
- Does it explain how the proposal affects spaces between buildings?
The allowed Conservation Area extract does not give the design analysis behind the conclusion. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
1 example
18 April 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a two storey rear extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the host property.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
For the reasons given, the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area and, as such, it would not cause harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the host property and, as such, there would not be a conflict with [name] CS11, CS12 and CS27 and LP Policy 120 and Appendix 7.
Paragraph 12 · Source page 3
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
6 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
new front gate.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such it conflicts with Policy CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Borough Council Core Strategy (2013) which requires, amongst other matters, for development to preserve attractive streetscapes.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
26 March 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a garage conversion, 1 and 2 storey side and rear extensions with new front porch canopy and associated internal house alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore find the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would conflict with Policies CS11 and CS12 of the [name] 2006-2031 (2013) which require, amongst other things, development to respect spaces between buildings and integrate with streetscape character.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
4 April 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a rear single storey extension, garage extension and front second floor extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The Council appears to raise no objection to the new single storey rear addition or to the proposed garage extension. I, too, find these elements of the appeal scheme acceptable because they would be modest in scale, height and depth, and appropriate in design and general appearance. Both of these extensions would respect the character and appearance of the host building and other properties nearby. Consequently, I shall focus on the proposed first floor extension at the front of the main house.
Paragraph 3 · Source pages 1, 2
10 March 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
alteration to external finishing material. (From brick to render finish).
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The proposal would therefore have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to the [name] 7 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004) as well as Policies CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013) which, amongst other things, seek to preserve attractive streetscapes.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2