Appeal 3315254

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of part first floor side extension and roof extension, incorporating front and side dormer windows at [site address] , Hertfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/01092/FULH, dated 7 September 2022, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: TF/100; 200; 201 and 202.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, window frames and rainwater goods of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

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 appeal property is an extended 2-storey detached dwelling sited at the junction of [address] and [address] which is located within a residential area comprising a mix of house types. As a lodge style dwelling the property is identified by the Council as a non-designated heritage asset and has several architectural features of note, including visible roof rafters at eaves level, small dormers within the roofslopes and brick bands.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) refers to the effect of a proposal on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset being taken into account in determining, in this case, an appeal. In weighing proposals that directly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Policy HE7.3 of the Watford Local Plan (WLP) includes criteria for the assessment of proposals affecting non-designated heritage assets.

By reason of orientation, the rear of the property is visible above a boundary hedge from [address], including the flat roof of a single storey rear and side addition. The proposed development includes the erection of a first floor extension above part of this addition. Unlike the addition, the appeal scheme would have a hipped roof form and ridge height similar to the host property.

Although the proposed extension would be visible from [address], it would be of a modest size which would not visually or physically dominate the existing property, even when taking into account previous alterations. Instead, the proposed development would respect and reflect the character, appearance and design of the host property, including the form and pitch of the main roof and the dormers within the roofslopes. The appeal scheme would be viewed as an integral part of the property when viewed from the adjacent roads rather than resulting in a visually dominant form of development which would detract from the predominately residential streetscenes of [address] and [address].

Further, the appeal scheme would represent an enhancement in character and appearance of the existing dwelling by reason of the first floor extension being of a more sympathetic design when compared to the single storey flat roof addition. Accordingly, the proposed development would not cause harm to the significance of this non-designated heritage asset, including its character, appearance and architectural features.

The appellant has indicated that the proposed extension would be erected of external materials matching those of host property. The use of matching materials would assist with the physical and visual assimilation of the proposed modest sized extension as part of the host property. The use of such materials, including windows and rainwater goods, could be secured by condition if this appeal succeeds.

For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such, it would not conflict with [name] HE7.1 and HE7.3. Amongst other matters, these policies require that the development of a non-designated heritage asset to avoids causing harm the significance of the asset and that alterations and extensions should enhance the building’s character.

The Council has suggested several conditions in the event this appeal succeeds which have been assessed against the tests in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. For reasons of certainty, a condition is necessary for the proposed development to be erected in accordance with the submitted drawings.

The Council has suggested a condition requiring the specific approval of materials, window details and rainwater goods to ensure that they match the host property. However, this objective could be achieved with a condition requiring matching external materials to be used. Accordingly, and for the reasons give, it is concluded that this appeal should be allowed.