Appeal 3305865

The appeal is dismissed.

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene.

The proposed development includes a single storey extension projecting from the front of a 2-storey dwelling which is at the end of a terrace of 3 properties. The appeal property is set back from [address] to the rear of the front garden and a greenspace with trees. Although the neighbouring property, [address], has a freestanding garage sited in its garden, other dwellings along [address] are equally well set back from the road to the rear of landscaped gardens which are also used for parking. To the north of the road are open agricultural fields. Accordingly, the streetscene has a predominantly spacious and verdant character and appearance.

The proposed extension would not project materially further forward than the single storey element of No. 7 and would be viewed against the context of this addition and the garage. However, by reason of its scale and design, the proposed front extension would be an incongruous form of development which would not respect the modest size of the host property and would not appear a subservient addition, including when assessed cumulatively with the rear addition

When viewed from the road, the scale and siting of the proposed extension would disrupt the consistent appearance of this short terrace of dwellings. These dwellings possess half width 2-storey projections from their front elevations. However, the appeal scheme would be of full width and a significantly deeper addition when compared to the existing front projections. There would be a conflict with the design requirements of Policies HOU11 and DES4 of the East Herts District Plan (DP) which, amongst other matters, refers to development respecting, and being appropriate to, the character of the site, the surrounding area and the setting of the existing dwelling.

The appellants have identified that the additional accommodation is required for health reasons but no details have been provided to enable an assessment to be made as to whether this matter outweighs the unacceptable harm which has been identified. Reference has also been made by the appellants to the absence of harm being caused to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties but this matter is demonstrably and significantly outweighed by the unacceptable harm which has been identified.

Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed because the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such, it would conflict with [name] HOU11 and DES4. No conflict has been identified with DP Policy VILL2 because of the varying character of the village, including the design of dwellings adjacent to the appeal property, but this does not alter the conclusion that this appeal should be dismissed.