Appeal 3342357

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an extension over single-storey side/rear extension and erection of front porch at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/23/2482/HH, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no 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: [name]:080/CAR/OS; and [name]: [site address] /FAN/001 [name].

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of both the existing dwelling and the streetscene.

The appeal property is a semi-detached two-storey dwelling, which is situated within a residential estate. Most of the properties date from the 1950’s and the surrounding area contains a mix of semi-detached and terraced housing. Several properties have been altered and extended since they were originally built.

The appeal property has a staggered flat roofed single-storey side/rear section, which is set-back behind the front wall of the dwelling. The proposal is to build above this part of the building to create an additional bedroom and shower room. In addition, a small porch is proposed at the front. The roof of the first-floor extension would have section of flat roof, this would not be readily visible from ground level.

The Council considers that the first-floor extension would result in a convoluted, bulky and dominant addition to the property. It concludes that this part of the proposal would conflict with Policies DES4 and HOU11 of the East Herts District Plan 2018 (DP). These policies seek (amongst other things) to ensure that the design of new development is of high quality and that alterations and extensions to dwellings are appropriate to the character, appearance and setting of the existing property. Policy HOU11 also requires extensions to be subservient to the existing dwelling.

The above policies are consistent with the provisions of paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023, which states (amongst other things) that development should add to the quality of the area and be visually attractive.

[name] acknowledge that the shape of the extension has meant that the roof design is somewhat complex, the graphic material, that has been submitted as part of the appeal, shows that the proposed first-floor addition would integrate successfully with the existing dwelling. The highest part of the roof would appear significantly lower that than the highest part of the main roof and its hipped construction would match the existing dwelling. Furthermore, although the first-floor extension would be clearly visible from [site address] , it would be set-back from the frontage, which would reduce the impact of the development on the streetscene.

Regarding the proposed front porch, this would be a relatively minor addition to the property. It would also reflect the characteristics of the existing dwelling in terms of its roof design and external materials.

For the above reasons, I consider that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the character or appearance of either the existing dwelling or the streetscene and it would not conflict with the relevant provisions of the DP, as referred to above.

The Council has suggested conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed. In addition to the standard conditions relating to the time for commencement and the listing of the approved plans, a condition is also imposed requiring the use of matching external facing materials. This is necessary to ensure a satisfactory external appearance.

For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal be allowed.