Appeal 3314464

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey front, single storey rear, and first floor rear/side extensions, a loft conversion with rear wall and alterations to the roof, and a garage conversion into living accommodation at [site address] , Hertfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/1272/HSE, dated 19 July 2022, and plan numbers 01A, 02A, 03, 04, 05, 06A, 07A, 08A and 09A.

The development the subject of this appeal is already in place, and according to the application form it has been completed. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on the basis of its retention.

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

The properties along this stretch of [address] are two storeys high, mostly semi-detached and detached, and finished predominantly in brick and tiles. Whilst many appear to have originally had a similar appearance and proportions, I observed that some have been significantly extended and altered. As a result, the streetscene is now fairly diverse, and the properties’ rear elevations even more so.

[name], Section 6, the Hertsmere Planning and Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2006 (‘SPD’) advises that, as roof extensions have a big impact on the appearance of a house and the area, they should be secondary in size to the roof face and, as a general rule, should take up no more than 60% of it.

The rear dormer in this scheme is set up from the dwelling’s eaves and down from its ridge, in accordance with the SPD but, contrary to it, occupies well over 60% of its extended roof. However, it is centrally located and set in from the roof edges, which helps to give the property a degree of balance and articulation. Together with the large ground floor extension, that ensures that the host does not have an awkwardly ’top-heavy’ appearance.

Moreover, from the host’s spacious rear garden, I observed large dormers nearby at [address] and at [address] (‘No 131’), as well as a gabled two storey rear extension adjacent to this site at No 123. There are also many nearby single storey rear projections. Whilst the dormer at No 131 may not benefit from planning permission, I have no evidence to indicate that it will not remain part of the area’s established character.

Given its location, the dormer in this scheme is not visually prominent from the public realm. Additionally, it is finished in dark grey hanging tiles, which respects the existing roof colour of this semi-detached pair, and thus helps to assimilate it with the rest of the building and the area, and limits its perceived mass.

In that context, neither the rear dormer, nor the other elements of the scheme, to which the Council does not object, appear incongruous. Consequently, whilst I have considered their cumulative impact, these extensions and alterations have not harmed the character and appearance of the host property or the area.

In general terms, Policy CS22 of the [name] 2013, and Policy SADM30 of the Hertsmere Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 collectively require high quality design, and development which complements local character and respects visual amenity, with regard to matters such as scale, mass, bulk, height and urban form.

For the above reasons, the scheme does not conflict with those policies, nor with the similar approach in the National Planning Policy Framework that development should respect the character of its surroundings, and that poor design which fails to take available opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area should be refused.

As the development the subject of the appeal is already in place, I agree with the Council that no conditions are necessary. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.