Construction of part single/part two storey rear extension with rooflights, part single storey/part two -storey side extension, front porch canopy and entrance alterations, roof alterations, external rendering, installation of stone cills and replacement of windows, following demolition of existing garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 May 2026 by J Kirkaldy BSc (Hons) PGDip MRTPI Decision by David Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31st July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6007644 20 The Avenue, Hertford, Hertfordshire SG14 3DR • 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 David Coulshed against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. • The application Ref is 3/25/1919/HH. • The development proposed is construction of part single/part two storey rear extension with rooflights, part single storey/part two -storey side extension, front porch canopy and entrance alterations, roof alterations, external rendering, installation of stone cills and replacement of windows, following demolition of existing garage. 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. Preliminary Matters and Main Issue 3. Some construction works have taken place on site, and the Council’s Delegated Officer Report refers to an extant planning permission for development on the appeal site, reference 3/25/1550H. Based on the evidence before me, the primary difference between the appeal proposal and the extant permission is the addition of a first-floor element to the side extension. Given the extant situation, the Council has not objected to the part single, part two-storey rear extension. Based on what I have seen and read I have no reason to disagree. As set out in the Officer Report, the Council’s concerns on the proposal relate to the part single, part two storey side extension, and in particular the first floor element. 4. A rear roof dormer has been installed however it does not form part of the proposal before me. This appeal has therefore been determined solely on the basis of the submitted plans. 5. Having regard to the above, my recommendation focuses on the effect of the proposed first floor element of the side extension and specifically its effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The appeal site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling situated on a prominent corner plot at the junction of Lys Hill Gardens and The Avenue within an Appeal Decision 6007644 https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate 2 established residential area. The building line along this section of The Avenue is staggered, with the front elevation of the appeal dwelling set back from that of the neighbouring property at 18 The Avenue. The dwelling also occupies a slightly elevated position in relation to the adjoining footway and carriageway. 7. On approach to The Avenue from Lys Hill Gardens, the rear and side elevations of the dwelling are visible. The side elevation of the garage lies in close proximity to the footway, with its prominence accentuated by its elevated position. Nevertheless, the garage remains single storey in form, retaining a sense of spaciousness and a visual gap between the two storey part of the dwelling and the boundary. This sense of spaciousness is supported by areas of grass with trees on either side of the junction and on the opposite side of the road , which are a characteristic feature of the estate and contribute to its open and verdant character. 8. The proposed first-floor addition above the garage would extend the built form at two-storey height beyond the established building line along the return street, Lys Hill Gardens. Whilst the existing dwelling previously included a side garage that projected beyond this building line, there was no first-floor built form that interrupted it. Although the proposed single-storey side extension is reduced in width compared to the previous garage and set back marginally further from the pavement, the introduction of built form at first floor, despite the setback position from both the side boundary and front elevation, would nonetheless erode the visual gap and sense of openness at that level. 9. The proposal would therefore disrupt the prevailing pattern of development, whereby properties, including those on corner plots, generally respect the building line of the return street frontage and retain visual gaps to side boundaries. As a result, the proposal would appear visually intrusive in the street scene and would erode the sense of openness and consistency that characterises the area. 10. Consequently, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would conflict with policies HOU11 and DES4 of the East Herts District Plan (2018) which seek extensions to be appropriate to the character, appearance and setting of the existing dwelling and surrounding area and of a high standard and layout to reflect and promote local distinctiveness. Other Matters 11. The appellant has drawn attention to examples of two-storey side extensions on corner plots that have received planning permission. However, the examples at 14 Revels Road, 9 Parker Avenue and 26 The Avenue differ in context from the appeal site in that the two-storey side extensions are set further back from the site boundary and pavement, with areas of garden providing a reasonable buffer that retains a visual gap. In addition, the side elevations of those extensions do not project beyond the building line of the return street. 12. In the example at 156 The Avenue, a part single-storey side extension abuts the boundary, with the two-storey side extension set back, in a manner comparable to the appeal proposal. However, the building line of the properties along the return street is staggered and the proposal reflects that established pattern . The context also differs with school grounds on the opposite side of the road. Appeal Decision 6007644 https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate 3 13. As such these developments do not represent direct parallels with the appeal proposal and in any event, each application must be determined on its individual merits. The presence of two-storey side extensions within the surrounding area does not represent justification for harmful development at the appeal site. Conclusion and Recommendation 14. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. J Kirkaldy APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 15. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. David Cross INSPECTOR