Single storey ground floor front extension, single storey first floor addition and a rear ground floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 July 2026 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:10 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009072 63 Batchwood Drive, St Albans, Hertfordshire AL3 5UF • 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 Bross against the decision of St Albans City & District Council. • The application Ref is 5/26/0066. • The development proposed is a single storey ground floor front extension, single storey first floor addition and a rear ground floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed first floor front extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling in a residential road of properties laid out in terraces on the east side of Batchwood Drive, with open land opposite. The surrounding area is residential in character. 4. I note that the Council considers that the rear and front single storey extensions reflect the character and appearance of the area, as these forms of extension are present at a number of other properties. Based on the site inspection I see no basis to take a different view on these elements. Consequently, the principal consideration for the appeal is the effect of the first floor front extension. 5. Policy 69 of the St Albans District Local Plan Review (1994) requires a high standard of design in all development, taking account of the context in terms of the scale and character of the surroundings. Policy 72 concerning extensions in residential areas requires that extensions shall relate to the domestic scale, character and appearance of the street; and be compatible with the original building in terms of architectural style, roof form, windows, detailing and materials. 6. The terraced dwellings which run along the east side of Batchwood Drive display a strong degree of uniformity, despite some having ground floor front extensions. This uniformity derives from the original, uninterrupted frontages at first floor level Appeal Decision 6009072 2 and simple pitched roof forms, as well as use of matching materials across the terraces. As such, these features create a rhythm and regularity across the built forms that are a substantive part of the established character and appearance of the street scene. 7. The proposed first floor extension would be of limited depth and would incorporate materials to match the existing dwelling and wider terrace. It would, however, undermine the uniformity of built form by interrupting the rhythm that exists across the terraces by introducing an incongruous and uncharacteristic form of development at first floor level. Moreover, the extension would not integrate effectively with the design and appearance of the existing dwelling as it would interrupt the ground floor roof form and would introduce a hipped roof at the upper level. As such, the different elements of the front extensions and original dwelling would not result in a coherent built form. 8. These effects would be particularly prominent due to the openness of the street scene and the contrast of the extended mid-terrace dwelling with the dwellings to either side of it. Other examples of first floor extensions referred to by the appellant are not comparable as they are either not part of the same street scene or appear to involve semi-detached dwellings, rather than terraces. Furthermore, they are limited examples that do not reflect the established character and appearance of the area. 9. Therefore, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed first floor front extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. Consequently, it is contrary to Policies 69 and 72 of the St Albans District Local Plan Review, as described. It is also contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, which advocates good design. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given, it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR