Appeal 6006186

The appeal is dismissed.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in December 2025 but does not raise any new matters which affect the assessment of this appeal scheme.

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 surrounding area.

The proposed development includes the erection of a rear roof extension which would extend across the main roof and the roof of the outrigger of a 2-storey dwelling which also has basement accommodation. The appellant claims that the proposed extension is necessary to enable the living accommodation within the roofspace to accord with the current requirements of the Building Regulations. This appeal has, however, been assessed based upon the relevant planning circumstances.

The property is located within the extensive Hertford Conservation Area where there is a statutory duty that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. This duty is echoed in Policies HA1 and HA4 of the East Hertfordshire Local Plan (LP).

The council’s Hertford Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan identifies that the property lies within part of the Conservation Area which is characterised by late 19th /early 20th century 2-storey terraced dwellings (when viewed form the roads) constructed of yellow brick with slate roof and chimneys. The dwellings generally possess decorative ground floor bay windows, recessed entrances and a mixture of traditional wooden and replacement windows. From the roads, the gabled roofscape of the terraces of dwellings makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. There are a limited number of roof extensions but, from what was observed, they are modest in size and confined to the main rear roofslopes of individual dwellings rather than extending above outriggers.

By reason if its scale, form and siting, the proposed dormer roof extension would conflict with LP Policy HOU11 because it would not be a modest addition that would be appropriate to the design and character of the host property. There would be the visual impression of an additional storey being added to the host property and this would be visible from the surrounding rear gardens and from [address], specifically through the gap between Nos. 8 and 6.

Within the context of other rear roof extensions, the siting and size of the appeal scheme would represent an incongruous addition to the property and the roofscape of the surrounding terraces of dwellings within this part of the Conservation Area. The proposed extension would, therefore, fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposed development would also not represent the high standard of design sought by LP Policy DES4. The use of matching external materials could not mitigate the unacceptable harm which has been identified,

The proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area and, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant has not identified any specific public benefits of the proposed development. The only benefit is a private one related to satisfying the current requirements of the Building Regulations, but this matter is given limited weight in the assessment of the appeal scheme which has been assessed based upon its planning circumstances.

For the reasons given it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and, as such, it would conflict with [name] HA1, HA4, HOU11 and DES4. No specific conflict with the Bengeo Neighbourhood Plan is cited in the council’s reason for refusal. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed.