Appeal 6007029

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 wider area.

The appeal property, [site address] is a substantial two-storey dwelling set in a relatively large verdant plot. It is by way of its form, detailing and external materials vernacular in design. It is located in a predominately residential area characterised by an eclectic mix of properties representing a rich and divers variety of architectural styles. They are also generally larger dwellings on substantial mature garden plots.

The house is set well back from and faces the road. There is a public footpath along the eastern boundary of the site.

The appellants propose the re-modelling of the house by way of, amongst other things, rear, side and front extensions along with the conversion of the proposed enlarged roof space to form two further bedrooms with a number of associated new dormer windows to the front and rear roof slopes.

The individual elements of extension and alteration when consider separately are each generally well-mannered. It is also clear from the evidence submitted and my observations on the occasion of my site visit that many of the architectural details incorporated in the proposed design are in one form or another typically to be found elsewhere locally. However, the mere fact that particular architectural details/elements are common elsewhere does not necessarily mean they are right or even appropriate in the context of this dwelling or in this location.

In my judgement, by reason of the cumulative impact of the proliferation of extensions, the number of dormers proposed, their scale and mix of roof shapes as well as the long and dominant gable roof would cumulatively result in an overly visually busy, fussy and striking dominant property.

A glazed porch rising up as a gallery at first and second floor level can be an attractive modern feature with, as identified by the appellant has a number of benefits. However, in this case given the height and gabled roof form of both the front porch and rear staircase glazing unit along with the number dormers and variety of designs of those dormers proposed they would serve to further expatiate the overall mass and prominence of the house as extended.

I conclude in respect of the main issue that, on balance the development when taken as a whole would cause significant harm to the architectural integrity of the host property. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the established soft landscaping to the boundaries of the plot harm to the character and appearance of the wider area.

To allow the development would therefore be contrary to the objectives of Policies 69 and 72 of the City and District of St Albans District Local Plan Review (Adopted 30 November 1994), Policy ESD1 of the Harpenden Neighbourhood Plan 2018- 2033 (November 2018) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework as they relate to, amongst other things, the requirement for a high standard of design that is compatible with the original building, respects the domestic scale and character of the street scene

The Council concluded that the development would, along with other things, not cause concerns in respect of residential amenity, would not impact on parking provision and subject to conditions would not harm the existing trees. It also found that the development would meet its policy objectives in terms of sustainability and energy efficiency. However, the absence of harm is a neutral factor in my considerations and, as such, I have given this matter very little weight in my

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