Three Rivers District Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Three Rivers?
See the roof changes inspectors criticised and the limits of the allowed annexe example.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 74 of 120
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 23
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 51
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 70
- of 74 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: Three Rivers LPA (51.660988, −0.460566). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Three Rivers District Council appeal findings
Roof changes and area character in Three Rivers
The selected examples contain fewer allowed appeals than the matched local set. The allowed annexe extract gives a conclusion, not detailed design reasoning.
Counted against appeals
Roof changes inspectors criticised
Roof changes diluted the original design
An enlarged front dormer, rear gable and side changes were found to dilute the original design and weaken roof-form coherence.
Different dormer sizes looked discordant
Three differently sized dormers were said to create discordance with the new roof, most noticeably on the front elevation.
A side and rear extension was found harmful
The extract concludes that this proposal would cause significant harm to the local area’s character and appearance.
Helped or needed
Allowed annexe conclusion
The annexe was found acceptable
The extract concludes that the annexe and land-level changes had an acceptable effect on area character and appearance. It does not say why.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does your refusal identify an enlarged dormer or new gable?
- Does it say different dormer sizes make the roof look discordant?
- Does it explain how side changes weaken the original roof form?
The allowed annexe extract gives no detailed design explanation, so it cannot explain why its outcome differed from the roof-change examples. 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
11 June 2025 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
the demolition of existing shed and construction of new annexe with associated land levels changes, platform and metal balustrade.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
In light of the above, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with Policies CP1 and CP12 of the [name] 2011, with Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document 2013, and with Policy 2 of the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan Referendum Version. Amongst other things, these policies support development that protects the built-up environment, is of high-quality design, has regard to its local context and makes a positive contribution to the street scene.
Paragraph 8 · Source page 2
Dismissed appeal examples
4 examples
14 April 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
loft conversion including side and rear dormer with 500mm increase in roof height.
Issue identified by the Inspector
I consider that the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
I have considered all other matters raised but none alter my conclusion. I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with policies CP12 and DM1 together with the design criteria in Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies Document. The appeal therefore fails.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
27 July 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
part single, part double storey first floor rear extension with internal alterations.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The rear extension and other alterations to the ground floor have little impact beyond the site area, but the proposal makes some changes to fenestration in the roof. A prominent dormer on the front elevation would be enlarged, and the insertion of a new gable at the rear with larger glassy openings would replace shallow dormers which, by their modest size, acknowledge the dominance of the roof form. Noting other insertions to the side elevations, these changes would cumulatively dilute the original design approach such that the result would substantially undermine the visual coherence of the roof form and thereby add to the identified harm to the character and appearance of the building. For the reasons set out, this would undermine the distinctive contribution made by No.[address] scene.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
15 November 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a garage conversion along with enlargement of existing dormers and raising of the ridge to accommodate new gable ends.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The harmful impact of this would be exacerbated by the presence of three dormers – which would, due to their varying sizes, introduce a sense of discordance with the new roof. This discordance would be most noticeable to the front elevation facing [address], where the roofscape would appear prominently and the two differently sized dormers would appear awkward against and in contrast with, the more symmetrical appearance of the proposed ground floor fenestration. 10.Further to the above, the proposed large front dormer and the proposed rear dormer would draw further attention to the prominence and bulkiness of the roof as a result of their considerable width. 11.Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Core Strategy1 Policy CP12; to DMP2 Policy DM1; and to Policy 2 of the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Development Plan (2020), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
14 September 2023 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
to erect a 2-storey side and rear extension and part single storey infill extension (in addition to single storey rear extension approved under application No 22/1439/CLPD).
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 therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it conflicts with Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Council’s Core Strategy and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of its Development Management Policies Local Development Document. These policies broadly aim to ensure that new development is appropriate in design, and conserves or enhances the character and quality of the street scene and the local area. It is also contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, which notes that development should be sympathetic to local character and add to the overall qualities of an area.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2