Described on the planning application form as “Part retrospective building works (part side wall built) single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 May 2026 By Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:08 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008801 81 Caesars Road, Wheathampstead AL4 8PA • 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 Rigers Mehmetaj against the decision of St Albans City and District Council. • The application Ref is 5/25/2267. • The development proposed is described on the planning application form as “Part retrospective building works (part side wall built) single storey rear extension ”. Preliminary Matter 1. The term part retrospective is not in itself an act of development. In consequence, I have used an amended description in the decision below. Decision 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension, at 81 Caesars Road, Wheathampstead AL4 8PA, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 5/25/2267 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: MMRM/CR/1 Rev A, MMRM/CR/2 Rev B, Proposed Block Plan at a scale of 1:500 and Existing OS Map at a scale of 1:1250. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling at 83 Caesars Road, with regard to whether the development would appear overbearing. Reasons 4. The proposal concerns a two storey semi-detached dwelling where there is a rear flat roof single storey extension that is inset from the boundary with the neighbouring dwelling at no 83. The proposed extension would infill this space, have a depth of about 6m, abut the side boundary and be next to the amenity space immediately to the rear of the adjacent dwelling. The ground levels at no 83 rise towards the end of the garden. However, the property is still at an appreciably higher ground level than the appeal site next to the position of the proposed Appeal Decision 6008801 2 extension, which would significantly limit the visual impact. In these circumstances, the fairly modest height of the flat roof addition would be insufficient to result in any oppressive sense of enclosure. Consequently, the extension would not appear overbearing. As a result, the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling would not be harmed. 5. The proposal would be contrary to City and District of St Albans District Local Plan Review, adopted 1994, Policy 72 (viii), which intends that single storey rear extensions shall not normally extend more than 3 metres rearward along a party boundary. 6. However, there would be compliance with Draft Local Plan 2041 Main Modifications Publication Policies DES1 and DES5. Taken together and among other things, these aim to ensure that single storey extensions do not extend along a party boundary to such a degree as to lead to an unacceptable impact on amenity and all development must achieve a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of neighbouring buildings. The emerging plan clearly shows the intended direction of travel towards a less precise or prescriptive policy. 7. In any event, an exception to the development plan is warranted in this case given the precise circumstances and the absence of harm. I also note that there would be compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, which in relation to this matter closely reflects Policy DES5. 8. A local resident expresses concern about the cumulative effect together with other development at the appeal site. However, previous additions will remain regardless of the extension now proposed, which must be considered on its own merits. There is no sound technical basis for rejecting the proposal due to flooding concerns or in relation to light pollution. Given the acceptability of the proposed development and its particular circumstances, I do not accept that any undue precedent for additional development would be set. 9. I saw at my site visit that there would be no unacceptable reduction in outside amenity space or overdevelopment given the relatively modest footprint of the extension. The development would be similar in appearance to the existing rear addition and because of the flat roof and fairly modest height it would not be a prominent feature. As a result, there would be no adverse effect on the appearance of the locality. 10. The proposal would conflict with the development plan. However, for the reasons given above there would be no harm to living conditions and this is an instance where a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore allowed. 11. Because development has already started a commencement condition is not needed. However, the vast majority of the extension has not been built so that conditions specifying the approved plans and requiring the facing materials to match those of the existing dwelling are necessary. These are needed to provide certainty and to protect the appearance of the host dwelling and locality. M Evans INSPECTOR