Two storey and single storey rear extension, extension to basement and alteration to fenestration detail

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 January 2026 by L Gardner MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19th January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002032 Normandy, 7 Wolsey Road, Moor Park, Hertfordshire HA6 2HN • 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 A & F Merali & Sugra Gulamhusein against the decision of Three Rivers District Council. • The application Ref is 24/1652/RSP. • The development proposed is two storey and single storey rear extension, extension to basement and alteration to fenestration detail. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal property is subject to an extensive planning history including application reference 18/1007/FUL (the 2018 permission) which granted planning permission for development with the same description as the appeal proposal before me. 3. Development on site has already commenced, albeit not in full accordance with the earlier permission. The appeal proposal, as well as seeking to retain and regulate some elements of the development, also intends to introduce further remedial development. I have therefore assessed the appeal proposal based on the submitted plans rather than solely the development as built on site. 4. The appeal site is situated within the Moor Park Conservation Area (CA) wherein I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and whether the development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the Moor Park CA. Reasons 6. The Moor Park CA is almost wholly residential in character, characterised by the presence of low density “Metroland” development from the 1930s, where two storey dwellings sit within large garden plots, within planned landscaped areas including grass verges and street trees. This provides for a notably green and spacious environment and a strong sense of the area’s heritage. Appeal Decision 6002032 2 7. The appeal property is a two-storey dwelling (with a further basement at the rear) with a hipped roof. The front elevation has a distinctive M-shaped roof form created by two hipped roof bay windows with a single cat slide element to the side. Between the two main hipped roof features is a flat roof section with a central chimney stack. The rear elevation features three partially overlapping hipped roof elements, two of which incorporate roof dormers set within the eaves. 8. The original dwelling was constructed circa. 1930’s and therefore formed part of the first phase of development within the CA, making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. Nevertheless, the dwelling has been extended and altered multiple times throughout the 20th and 21st Century. 9. The main parties have referred to a previous appeal decision at the appeal site1. Significantly, this pre-dates planning permission being granted for further extensions and alterations through the 2018 permission. The previous Inspector did however acknowledge that there is a diversity of design in the vicinity of the appeal site, which corresponds with my own site observations. 10. The appeal proposal deviates from the approved 2018 permission in numerous respects. The original roof has been replaced resulting in an overall increased pitch height of around 0.3m with elements of a steeper roof pitch and greater roof overhangs when compared to the 2018 permission. The flat roof central section is also higher than the previous approval with a new chimney that as built, has a lesser height than the pre-existing chimney. 11. The Moor Park Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) (2006) states that proposals with a ridge materially taller than those of neighbouring houses are unlikely to be acceptable. It also discourages against large extensions with deep floor plans or additional floors entailing large overall bulk, height or more complex roof forms. 12. Whilst the appeal proposal includes an intention to increase the height of, and reinstate the central chimney stack, the overall pitch height and the flat roof between the two hipped roof bay windows is proposed to remain as built. When viewed in the street scene, the appeal property has a marked prominence being materially taller than its adjoining neighbours. 13. The flat roof between the two hipped roof bay windows is almost the same height as the overall roof which adds to the complexity of the roof form and results in it being an overly prominent feature within the street scene. Overall, the roof form of the dwelling appears bulky to the detriment of the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Taking these factors into account, the design of the roof deviates from the advice within the CAA. 14. The appeal proposal also includes changes to the rear fenestration of the dwelling when compared to the 2018 permission. Whilst the Council is of the view that the previous 2018 permission had a general design which was considered to largely replicate the original rear elevation, it remains that the original rear elevation is no longer part of the character of the dwelling due to modern additions approved through previous permissions. The changes to the rear elevation between the appeal proposal and the 2018 permission are not fundamental and given their positioning at the rear of the appeal property would have a negligible impact on the character and appearance of the CA. 1 APP/P1940/D/16/3143540 decision dated 28 April 2016 Appeal Decision 6002032 3 15. There are elements of the appeal proposal which would represent a benefit to the overall design of the dwelling including the reinstatement of the central chimney stack and the replacement of the windows on the front elevation (at both ground and second floor) with traditional style casements. It is also intended to add mock Tudor detailing to part of the front elevation and reduce the height of the flat roof element to the side of the dwelling, all of which could be secured by condition. 16. Nevertheless, neither the proposed further remedial works, nor the lack of harm in relation to the fenestration details at the rear of the dwelling, outweighs the harm which I have identified arising from the dwellings overall bulky and dominating roof form. On this basis I conclude that the proposal would erode the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and in doing so fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Moor Park CA. 17. The development is therefore contrary to Policy DE1 of the Batchworth Neighbourhood Plan (2025), Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Three Rivers District Council Core Strategy (2011) and Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Three Rivers District Council Development Management Policies (2013) which collectively seek for development to ensure that design quality respects local distinctiveness and context, including through conserving and enhancing heritage assets. Other Matters 18. I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application, including in respect to advice given prior to the decision and attempts to contact officers during the application proceedings. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal. Planning Balance and Conclusion 19. Taking all of the above into account, I find the harm to the CA to be at the lower end of less than substantial, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the development. 20. The proposal includes the intention for further remedial works which would better enhance the character of the dwelling such as the replacement of windows on the front elevation and the introduction of mock Tudor detailing. Whilst these represent minor public benefits, they are limited in extent and do not outweigh the harm which I have found to the character and appearance of the CA. 21. I therefore conclude that the development fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 215 of the Framework, and it is not in accordance with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, and having considered all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. L Gardner INSPECTOR