St Albans City and District Council appeal evidence
Refused over character and appearance in St Albans City and District?
See the local changes inspectors found harmful and the conclusion reached for the allowed dormers.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 48 of 139
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 11
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 36
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 46
- of 48 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: St Albans LPA (51.772092, −0.34247). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
St Albans City and District Council appeal findings
Street edges, walls and extensions in St Albans
The selected examples show more dismissed appeals than the matched local set. Some extracts give only a conclusion, not the design analysis.
Counted against appeals
Fence, wall and extension concerns
Fence reduced open side space
Moving the fence nearer the pavement and replacing grass with hedge reduced open side space, leaving an obtrusive street feature.
The proposal’s own harm mattered
For the roof extension, the Inspector said the proposal’s own harm was unacceptable, rather than the cumulative effect of similar changes.
Wall and extensions were found harmful
The extracts conclude that the replacement wall and extensions harmed character and appearance, without explaining the preceding design analysis.
Helped or needed
What the dormer decision preserved
Dormers preserved the conservation area
The Inspector concluded that the front and rear dormers preserved the conservation area and the dwelling’s positive contribution.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify lost open space beside the property?
- Would a boundary fence sit closer to the pavement?
- Does the refusal explain harm from your proposal itself?
The allowed extract concerns dormers, while the dismissed examples also cover a boundary wall, fence and extensions. 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
22 September 2022 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a front and rear dormer extension with ground floor modification.
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
On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would not materially harm the character and appearance of the local area. It would preserve the character and appearance of the CA and the positive contribution of the appeal dwelling to it. Accordingly, there is no conflict with Policies 69, 72, 85 or 87 of the City and District of [site address] District Local Plan Review. These policies aim to ensure that new development achieves a high standard of design, is compatible with the original building, and preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the conservation area.
Paragraph 11 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
18 July 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the raising of existing ridge and rear eaves to facilitate a loft conversion with rear dormer, and insertion of three rooflights to front roof slope.
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
The Council is also concerned about the cumulative impact of similar roof extensions and dormer windows resulting in greater harm to the character and appearance of the area. However, if each of these prospective proposals were acceptable in their own right, there would be no harm in permitting a number of them. Each case must be considered on its own merits and, for the avoidance of doubt, it is the harm that would be caused by the appeal proposal alone that I consider would be unacceptable, rather than any cumulative impact.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
9 July 2025 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a replacement boundary wall.
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 conclude that the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, it is contrary to Policies 69 and 72 of the LP and Policies S3 and S5 of the St Stephen Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036 (2022) which require development to have an adequately high standard of design, to relate to the character and appearance of the street, to take account of the local context, to respond and integrate well with its surroundings and to provide high quality boundary treatment.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
21 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to remove 15 year old side boundary 1.8m c/b wooded fence and erect new 1.8m c/b wooden fence ±2.0m closer to side boundary on residential curtilage land. Transplant existing Privet hedgerow in the gap between the new fence location and pavement, as per that of the adjoining [address] scene.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2
Reasoning from the decision
The proposed fence would project to the side of the property and would be significantly closer to the pavement than the current enclosure. Furthermore, the existing hedge would be re-planted between the proposed fence and the footpath, in place of the existing grassed area. Consequently, the proposal would significantly reduce the existing open space to the side of the property. In this case the height and extent of the fence would fail to retain the open appearance and character of the street, and it would be an obtrusive feature in the street scene at a prominent point on [address].
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
8 December 2021 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a garage conversion to form habitable space, erection of single storey front extension to form new garage, single storey side extension and relocation of front door.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Therefore, for the reasons above I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area and therefore would be contrary to Policies 69 and 72 of the St Albans District Local Plan Review (1994). These policies require new development to have a high standard of design which relate to the domestic scale, character and appearance of the street. It would also be contrary to the general design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2