Double and single storey front and side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 April 2026 By Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004283 211 Prestwick Road, Watford WD19 6EJ • 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 Debbie Luke against the decision of Three Rivers District Council. • The application Ref is 25/1584/FUL. • The development proposed is a double and single storey front and side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are: - The effect on the streetscene and the character and appearance of the locality. - The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling at 14 Caldwell Road, with regard to whether the development would appear overbearing. Reasons 3. The appeal concerns a two storey hipped roof semi-detached dwelling. The proposal includes a two storey part projecting forward of the property. The roof of this would be set below the main roof of the host dwelling with a hipped end to the front and a slope down towards the side. The double storey part would extend no closer to the street at the front than other nearby properties due to the angled siting of the house. It is also suggested by the Appellant that the single storey parts and articulated form would soften its bulk. 4. However, this part would extend 2.5m beyond the main front wall as shown on the submitted plans. The depth would not therefore be limited and result in this being a particularly assertive feature in the street. Moreover, in the context of the other dwellings in the vicinity this would be a particularly unusual and uncharacteristic feature. Furthermore, the two storey projection would be readily seen from the street with its eaves at the same height as in the original part. As a result, rather than respecting the rhythm of the street and being subordinate to the host dwelling, the addition would be unduly prominent, incongruous and visually intrusive. 5. The Appellant has referred to a number of properties where development has taken place, suggesting this has resulted in a varied context and has provided Appeal Decision 6004283 2 photographs and decision notices. However, my attention has not been drawn to any examples of two storey development extending beyond the main front wall as now proposed. As a result, this matter lends no significant support to the appeal. 6. For these reasons, regardless of the acceptability of the spacing to the side boundary, the streetscene and the character and appearance of the locality would be harmed. The adverse impact could not be reasonably addressed by a condition and none has been suggested. 7. The development would be contrary to Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document (2013) (DMP), the aims of which include seeking to protect the character of existing areas of housing and that front extensions should not be excessively prominent in the streetscene. There would also be conflict with the Core Strategy (2011) (CS) Policies CP1 and CP12 which promote buildings of a high quality and proposals that have regard to the local context. 8. The rear elevation of the two storey dwelling at 14 Caldwell Road would be at a sufficiently oblique angle to the development to avoid any undue sense of enclosure to the rear windows. The enlarged dwelling would not project significantly rearwards at two storey height, preventing any undue impact at the neighbouring amenity space. As a result, the development would not appear overbearing from the adjacent property. 9. For these reasons, there would be no harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling. In consequence, there would be no conflict with the intentions of DMP Policy DM1 and CS Policies CP1 and CP12, among other things, to prevent such adverse effects. 10. The quality of the living accommodation would be improved and better use made of previously developed land. There would be a benefit to the local economy but this would be fairly modest given the relatively small scale of the development. In any event, these would be achieved at the unacceptable expense of the quality of the built environment. The absence of harm in relation to living conditions is a neutral matter that weighs neither for nor against the development. 11. In the National Planning Policy Framework it is indicated that decisions should ensure that developments satisfy a number of considerations. These include that the proposed development should be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character, which would not be achieved in this case. 12. Taking account of all other matters raised, because of the harm that would arise the appeal is dismissed. M Evans INSPECTOR