Appeal 3272010

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The appeal property is a two storey end terrace property located in a mature well-established residential area, with a mixture of two and three storey properties of varied character set back from the road behind a front garden/driveway. No. [site address] [site address] has a small porch extension with a mono-pitched tiled roof projecting from the front of the property.

The proposal would entail the construction of a single storey flat roofed side extension that would extend across the full width of the house and project out in line with the existing porch extension on the front elevation of the property.

Although the proposed extension would not appear overlarge, relative to the overall plot size, the scale and form of the proposed extension would nevertheless still be a significant addition to the appeal property in this location. The awkward design and appearance of the flat roofed extension would be very much at odds with the distinctive mono-pitched roof of the porch extension at the front of the host property.

These shortcomings would be exacerbated by the proposal’s prominent position, which would be visible from a number of public vantage points along [site address] . The proposed extension, by virtue of its scale, siting and design, would fail to achieve an appropriate degree of subordination to the host property and would detract from the architectural integrity of the host property. As such, I consider that the proposed extension would result in an incongruous and out-of-keeping addition that would cause unacceptable harm to the host property and the area.

I have considered the appellant’s arguments that the design and layout of the side extension has been carefully considered in order to take into account the character of the host property and the area. Whilst the use of matching materials and fenestrations assist in integrating the extension with the host property and the area, these aspects again do not overcome the adverse effects outlined above.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the area. It would be contrary to Policies D1 and D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005 and the Council’s Supplementary Design Guidance 2005. These policies and guidance, amongst other things, seek development proposals of a high quality design that maintain and where possible improve the character of the area. In addition, the proposal would not accord with the National Planning Policy Framework that developments should seek to secure a high quality of design (paragraph 126) that are sympathetic to the local character (paragraph 130).

I have noted the other developments in the area drawn to my attention by the appellant. However, the single storey side extension at No. 33 [name] has different development and locational characteristics to the appeal scheme. In any event, each proposal falls to be assessed primarily on its own merits and I am unaware of the full circumstances associated with these other cases. I therefore accord it limited weight as a precedent in this case.

I note the appellant’s comments regarding the various benefits arising from the development including the scheme’s high quality design. [name] have given them some weight, these benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified. For all these reasons, there are no other material considerations to outweigh the development plan conflicts identified.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.