Double storey side and rear extension, partial demolition of brick fence

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2025 by B Pattison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000979 65 Westmeade Close Rosedale, Cheshunt, Hertfordshire EN7 6JR  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 Mrs Katarzyna Morus against the decision of Broxbourne Borough Council.  The application Ref is 07/25/0479/HF.  The development proposed is Double storey side and rear extension, partial demolition of brick fence. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. Westmeade Close is a residential development lined by a mix of detached and semi-detached properties, often set back from the highway behind parking areas. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling, which is constructed in brick, with hung tiles on the first floor front elevation. It is located on a corner plot adjacent to a turning area and a small area of green open space. 5. Around Westmeade Close, and particularly at corner properties, small landscaped areas can be found. Individually, they are modest in scale, but collectively they create a sense of openness within the development that softens its urban form and makes a positive contribution to the area’s overall character. 6. Between the dwelling’s side elevation and garden wall and the public highway is a narrow area of open grassed space. Whilst not particularly large, this grassed area creates a softened, open and visually appealing edge to the property, which is characteristic of the wider development. Appeal Decision 6000979 2 7. The two storey side extension would cover much of the green space. The introduction of built form close to the rear edge of the pavement would result in physical and visual enclosure of the open space. This would visually narrow the street and erode the sense of relief that the open space currently provides within the relatively close-knit residential environment. As a result, the proposal would appear as a cramped and intrusive addition to the street scene. 8. The proposal would shift the building line much closer to the highway on this stretch of Westmeade Close. As a result of its significant step forward from the built form of 63 and 64 Westmeade Close it would appear as a particularly prominent and incongruous addition to the street scene. 9. The main parties agree that the proposed windows and facing materials would match those of the host dwelling. The extension’s roof would sit below the highest point of the existing roof, and its front elevation would include a slight set-back from the dwelling’s front elevation. The width of the side extension would alter the symmetry of the semi-detached pair as any side extension would. The rear element, despite its depth, would feature a pitched roof with a gable that would complement the existing roof form. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not unacceptably unbalance the pair of semi-detached properties. 10. Nevertheless, due to its incongruous projection into the adjoining open space, it would significantly reduce the characteristic openness and cause harm to the area’s existing character. In reaching this view, I have had regard to the fact that local character can evolve over time. 11. My attention has been drawn to a side extension at 22 Westmeade Close. I have not been provided with information as to whether the circumstances in that case were the same as the case before me. Therefore, I am not satisfied the case is directly comparable to the case before me. Notwithstanding this, each development must be considered on its individual merits, and I have reached my conclusion based on the individual merit of the appeal proposal. 12. I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies DSC1, DC2 and ORC3 of the Broxbourne Local Plan (2020). These policies seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development is well designed and that proposals for extensions to existing dwellings are of a scale, design and external appearance that does not unduly impact upon the parent building and wider setting, whilst also identifying that there will be a presumption against the loss of amenity spaces. Conclusion 13. The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, the appeal is dismissed. B Pattison INSPECTOR