Construction of single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 November 2025 by E Street BSc (Hons) MSc Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000879 Stamhus, Troutstream Way, Loudwater, Hertfordshire WD3 4LB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Scott Morgan against the decision of Three Rivers District Council • The application Ref is 25/1213/FUL. • The development proposed is the construction of single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether or not the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Loudwater Estate Conservation Area (CA). Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The significance of the CA is heavily influenced by the arts and crafts movement in the design of its larger scale detached dwellings. In and around the appeal site, they are sat forward of their open and largely undeveloped verdant plots with a contained land take despite their size which results in a high space to building ratio. Whilst Stamhus is not explicitly described within the Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) as being an original McNamara property, it is of a form and siting that reflects others in the area, following the consistent pattern and arrangement of the CA, to which it contributes positively. 5. The appeal proposal would involve a narrow and substantially elongated rearward extension which would enclose the pool area. The extent of the additional land take of the eventual dwelling, specifically the sprawling nature of it, would unacceptably contrast against the contained feel of the CA in built form terms, reducing the spacious qualities of the rear garden and the open feel of the CA more generally. Other extensions are apparent elsewhere, but none appear to be as significant a depth as the appeal scheme. Its siting to the rear of the building would not make it acceptable. A conservation area applies to more than what can be seen in the public realm. Appeal Decision 6000879 2 6. Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing. Nationally speaking, paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) places emphasis on great weight being given to an asset’s conservation. Given the above assessment, the proposal would neither preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Due to the scale of the development in context, the harm is to the lower end of less than substantial. As directed by paragraph 215 of the Framework, this should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Neither of the main parties have provided any public benefits of the scheme. There may be some economic benefits during the construction phase, however as I have been provided with no other benefits, I can only afford very limited weight to this. 7. It is sufficiently clear, given the above, that the public benefits would not outweigh the great weight given to the conservation of the CA. Resultantly, there would be conflict with Policy CP1 of the Three Rivers District Council Core Strategy 2011, Polices DM1, DM3 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document 2013, Policies 1 and 2 of the Chorleywood Neighbourhood Plan 2020 and the relevant paragraphs of the Framework. Together, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and conserve the historic environment, amongst other things. Conclusion and Recommendation 8. For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan and I have been given no compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Street APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 9. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR