East Hertfordshire District Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in East Hertfordshire?
See why a local side extension was dismissed and which site and design facts helped selected allowed examples.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 142 of 220
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 54
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 87
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 131
- of 142 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: East Hertfordshire LPA (51.865109, −0.008196). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
East Hertfordshire District Council appeal findings
Extension bulk and garage siting in East Hertfordshire
The selected examples lean towards allowed decisions, unlike the matched local set, and mostly give conclusions rather than detailed reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Side-extension bulk found incongruous
Bulk, scale and width combined
The Inspector described the side extension as incongruous because its bulk, scale and width harmed the area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Detached-garage facts that helped
Established residential curtilage
The Inspector found the site was established residential curtilage. The refusal reason had referred to agricultural land.
Compatible incidental garage
It was treated as an incidental building, accessed from the forecourt and designed compatibly with the dwelling.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify bulk, scale, width, or all three?
- Can you show the site forms part of the home’s established curtilage?
- Would it read as an incidental building compatible with your home?
The detailed allowed reasoning is about a detached garage, not a side extension. 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
4 examples
22 August 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
first floor extension to existing dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposed development would therefore be in accordance with policies HOU11, DES4 and GBR2 of the East Herts District Plan, October 2018. These policies indicate that proposals for extensions must be of a size, scale, mass, form, siting, design and materials that are appropriate to the character, appearance and setting of the dwelling, particularly in the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt; and, all proposals must be of a high standard of design and layout to reflect and promote local distinctiveness. The proposed development would also comply with GANP Policy AG1 as it would maintain the countryside character of the landscape setting, amongst other things.
Paragraph 9 · Source pages 2, 3
22 August 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
new detached garage.
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 2
Reasoning from the decision
I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. In this respect, it would comply with Policy MH D2 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan, which amongst other matters requires the design of new buildings to harmonise with their surroundings.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
11 March 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
Erection of single storey detached garage consisting of 2 open car ports and an enclosed garden store.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The Main issue is the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed garage would be located in front of and to the north side of the dwelling, accessed from the existing forecourt and within the existing curtilage of ‘[name]. The Council’s first RFR refers to the location of the proposed garage being on agricultural land however this does not appear to reflect the situation on site; in any event concerns as to the implementation of previous consents or the extent of residential curtilage are not before me to consider. Similarly, as stated previously, the proposed garage and related paved area have been granted permission in an apparently identical location such that there can now be no reasonable dispute on the part of the Council. The proposed garage would appear as an incidental building within an established residential curtilage to a design which is compatible with the host dwelling. I therefore find no conflict with GBR2 and DES4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 2
16 February 2023 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
two storey rear extension incorporating two rooflights, insertion of dormer window, alterations to front porch, creation of car port and alterations to fenestration.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and the appeal property itself.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I find that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area nor the appeal property itself.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
1 example
13 June 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
construction of a two-storey side extension.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, the proposed extension would be an incongruous addition to the dwelling as a result of its bulk, scale and width and, consequently, it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies HOU11 and DES4 of the East Hertfordshire District Plan (2018), insofar as they require the size, scale, and mass of a development to respect the character, appearance and setting of the surrounding area.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2