Appeal 6006709

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and the thereby the character and appearance of the street scene and the wider area.

The appeal property, [site address] (No 6) is a link-detached, two-storey dwelling. It is one of a group of identical houses within a larger estate of properties designed and detailed so that the overall development has a cohesive visual architectural appearance.

The row of link-detached houses on the north side of the road, of which No 6 is one remain largely as originally designed and built. They are simple gabled roofed dwellings with flat roofed linking garages equally spaced, and uniform in appearance.

The appellants propose the erection of a part single and part two-storey front and side extension along with the conversion of the garage to form an office, utility room and shower room.

The proposed two-storey side addition would have an uncharacteristic, hipped roof with its ridge set at 90 degrees to that of the host property. In the context of the existing design of the No 6 it would appear as contrasting, jarring and alien intervention here.

The single storey flat roofed garage, which is currently the linking element between the houses in the row would be virtually wholly subsumed by the side extension and thereby its visual importance in the original composition significantly denuded. The proposed new garage would project forward of the original garage thereby disrupting the rhythm of the layout of the properties.

Furthermore, by reason of the two-storey extension to the front of the house, the new porch, extended canopy and the repositing of the front door to face the street the property’s symmetry with the neighbouring houses would be lost.

Overall, for the reasons given, the proposed extensions and alterations would cause significant harm to the architectural integrity of the host dwelling, the row of link detached houses and thereby the character and appearance of the estate.

To allow the development would therefore be contrary to the objectives of Policies 69 and 72 of the St Albans Local Plan Review 1994 (Adopted 30 November 1994) and the National Planning Policy Framework as they relate to amongst other things the requirement for development to be of a high quality of design and for extensions to be compatible with the original building, relate to its scale and to the character and the appearance of the street scene.

The Council concluded that the development would not cause concerns in respect of privacy or overlooking, result in any harm to residential amenity, loss of daylight or sunlight or cause highway safety issues. However, the absence of harm is a neutral factor in my considerations and, as such, I have given these matters very little weight in my decision.

From my observations on site, I appreciate that No’s 1 and 2 has been significantly extended including the addition of two-storey hipped roof side extension. However, in addition to this property being located on a corner plot where such an extension is more appropriate in that context, the extension has been located in such a position so as to not impact on the symmetry of the link detached layout of the adjoining row of houses. The appellant has also referred me to recent single and two-storey front extensions on [address]. Whatever the background to those cases, and while I do not consider them in any case to be directly comparable, they are not an appropriate justification for permitting the proposed development here. I therefore give these considerations very little weight in the planning balance.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.