For a single storey side to rear extension, roof extension, front and rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 March 2026 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003989 126 Greenfield Avenue, Carpenders Park, Watford WD19 5DQ • 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 Dhankara against the decision of Three Rivers District Council. • The application Ref. is 25/1940/FUL. • The development proposed is for a single storey side to rear extension, roof extension, front and rear dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side to rear extension, roof extension, front and rear dormer at 126 Greenfield Avenue, Carpenders Park, Watford WD19 5DQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1940/FUL, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: A2025070.PA109 REVP01, A2025070.PA2.102 REVP01, A2025070.PA2.103 REVP01, A2025070.PA2.105 REVP01, A2025070.PA2.106 REVP01 and A2025070.PA2.107 REVP01. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details listed within the submitted planning application forms. 4) The flank rooflights hereby permitted shall be positioned a minimum internal cill height of 1.7m above the internal floor level of the room which they are intended to serve. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site contains a split-level house on land that slopes down quite steeply in a south-westerly direction from the road, appearing as a bungalow at the front Appeal Decision 6003989 2 and as two storeys at the rear, with a lower ground flat roof extension which has permission to be extended further. 4. It is principally the ground floor and roof of the host dwelling which are visible when walking up Public Footpath 18 from Penrose Avenue, seen against the backdrop of the roofs of bungalows within Greenfield Avenue, as well as the red brick chalet house at 128 Greenfield Avenue. 5. The primary view from the footpath would be of the extended roof within which a dormer window would be sited, along with the rear elevation of the ground floor extension. The result would be more bulky and prominent than the existing situation, although in design terms it would be more symmetrical and on balance not detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. 6. The south east elevation would also be highly visible in the Greenfield Avenue street scene and with a crown roof would increase the scale and massing when viewed from the east. However, that would be seen against the backdrop of no128 which itself has a significant roof form albeit with a gable that projects to the side/rear at 90°. Views of the north west elevation would also be visible within the street scene, but with substantial blocks of flats visible in the background I consider that it would not appear incongruous, especially as there are many examples of roof extensions within the immediate locality. 7. I acknowledge that cumulatively the proposed extensions would increase the bulk and massing of the host dwelling and notwithstanding that the crown roof design is not generally favoured within the Council’s Design Guidance (Appendix 2) of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document adopted July 2013 (DMPLDD) in reality one would only be able to perceive the pitched elements that surround it. 8. Further, I note that DMPLDD Appendix 2 also sets out that dormer windows should appear subordinate to the host roof slope and that front dormers may not always be appropriate in the street scene. However, whilst the dormers that have been previously approved, pursuant to planning permission 24/0737/FUL were smaller, nonetheless the proposed dormers would not be out of character with other examples that I viewed in the road. 9. When comparing the proposed street scene to the existing situation, having regard to the fact that Greenfield Avenue also curves upwards in an easterly direction with no124 being on higher ground than it, its contribution to the street scene as proposed to be extended would appear harmonious within it. Views of both side elevations would appear as pitched roofs, notwithstanding the concealed crown roof that would enable accommodation to be provided within the loft space, and to the rear, notwithstanding its elevated position, the extensions would in many ways simplify its appearance and would appear in character with no128. 10. Therefore notwithstanding the conflict with DMPLDD Appendix 2, I find that the proposal would not be unduly prominent or detrimental to the character and appearance of the area with it complying with Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Three Rivers District Council Core Strategy adopted 2011 which together protect built environments form inappropriate development, ensuring that the local context and quality of an area is conserved, whilst making efficient use of land. Appeal Decision 6003989 3 Conclusion and Conditions 11. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. 12. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I consider it is necessary to impose conditions requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and that the materials to be employed in the external surfaces of the development are in accordance with the submitted planning application forms, in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area. 13. In addition the Council has suggested that a condition be imposed which requires the flank rooflights to be positioned with a minimum internal cill height of 1.7m above the internal floor level of the room which they are intended to serve. I consider this necessary to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents from overlooking. C J Tivey INSPECTOR