Appeal 3324626

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as it is more accurate than that provided on the application form. I also noted the presence of a covered porch area at the site during my visit. However, I must make my decision on the basis of the submitted plans and I have proceeded on this basis.

Since the determination of this application, the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not been amended. I have not sought further submissions on the revised Framework, and am satisfied that no party’s interests have been prejudiced by my taking this approach.

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

The site is a two-storey dwelling with modest ground floor bay window with hipped roof in [address], at the junction with [address]. The property is staggered, flush with the side elevation of the adjoining property to the south and behind the side elevation of the adjoining property to the north. [address] features a range of dwellings and porch widths, but properties in the immediate grouping of the site share a commonality in the modest projection and hipped roof of their front porches and bay windows. As such, the property contributes positively to the surrounds due to this consistency.

The proposal relates to a single storey front porch, constructed from materials that would assimilate at the dwelling and in the surrounds. While it would span almost the entire width of the appeal property, given the wider nature of surrounding front projections this alone would not cause undue visual harm.

However, although it would be less than half the depth of the dwelling and would retain much of the garden, the proposal would extend much further than the front bay window. This would result in a bulky front elevation with a level of projection that would fail to respect the modest proportions and simple shape of the dwelling. It would also fail to relate to or integrate with surrounding front porches and bay windows. The incongruous nature of the proposal would be further highlighted by its flat roof, which is not a common feature along front elevations in the immediate section of [address].

Planning and [name]: Guidelines for [name] and Alterations 2006 (the SPD) states that front extensions larger than a porch will be refused if they stand out as bulky, out of character or adversely change the appearance of the house or street. Although guidance rather than policy, given my findings this SPD provides support for my conclusion that the proposal would cause undue visual harm due to it bulk and incongruous appearance.

The proposal would be largely screened from [address]. However, clear views of it would be possible from [address], despite its setback. Rather than visually merging with the wall behind, in the context of surrounding front porches and projections it would read as dominant and out of character. While the appellant has suggested it would potentially be obscured by a side extension at No. 46, there is nothing substantive before me to suggest that this is anything more than a theoretical possibility at this stage.

For the reasons given, the proposal would cause significant adverse harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. As such, it would fail to comply with Policy CS22 of the Hertsmere Local Plan Development Plan [name] 2013, Policy SADM30 of the Hertsmere Local Plan Site Allocation and Development Management Policies Plan 2016, and the SPD insofar as they seek to ensure high quality design that recognises and complements the character of the area.