Porch, two storey side & single storey rear/ side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 June 2026 by L Clark MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009034 16 Melrose Avenue, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 1SZ • 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 Simon Haynes against the decision of Hertsmere Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/0051/HSE. • The development proposed is a porch, two storey side & single storey rear/ side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a porch, two storey side & single storey rear/side extension at 16 Melrose Avenue, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire EN6 1SZ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/0051/HSE, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the elevations and floor plans shown on drawing no P02 revision A. 3) The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 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 3. The Council’s report implies that they do not object to the proposed porch. I have no reason to disagree, and my recommendation therefore focusses on the two- storey side and single storey rear/side extension. The block plan does not show the rear extension or the porch. However, the detail is clearly shown on the elevations and floor plans, so it is clear for enforcement purposes. The rear extension and porch are also included in the description of development above and therefore the proposal is apparent. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6009034 2 Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal property is semi-detached and occupies a corner plot at the junction with Stafford Gate. The dwelling appears to have already been extended to the side. The side elevation of the property faces towards Stafford Gate and is bordered by tall close boarded fencing. The same can be said for other nearby corner plots and therefore the area has a fairly built-up appearance from Stafford Gate. However, properties generally have open frontages on Melrose Avenue that lends a more spacious feel to the front of the dwelling. 6. The proposal would introduce a side extension that would be part two storey and part single storey and would also extend to the rear. The two-storey aspect would be stepped in with the single storey part being closest to the boundary. This would allow views across the site and reduce the obviousness of the two-storey aspect in the street scene. The flat roofed extension would have a fairly large land take, but I remain to be convinced that it would be harmful due to its recessed height that would not be substantially taller than the existing roadside fencing. The side extension would be in line with the existing dwelling and would retain a sense of spaciousness to the front. 7. The overall appearance of the proposed side extension would be subordinate having a slim two storey width and a flat roofed single storey aspect that would not compete for visual dominance with the existing dwelling or be unacceptably prominent within the street scene. The proposal would not therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and would comply with Policy CS22 of the Hertsmere Local Plan Development Plan Document Core Strategy 2013 and Policy SADM30 of the Hertsmere Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 which are concerned with respecting visual amenity amongst other things. Other Matters 8. The Planning and Design Guide 2006 (SPD) provides guidance for residential extensions and alterations. The proposal does not strictly meet the requirements of the SPD in terms of its height against the main ridge line, its set back to the side and front, the side wall following the boundary line and the rear extension joining to the side extension. However, the SPD states that proposals need to take account of the circumstances of a site and its prevailing character, which I have done above. The SPD is guidance and not policy and a lack of compliance in the specific sense does not automatically mean a given scheme would be harmful. 9. Melrose Avenue is made up of groups of semi-detached properties that have a similar appearance. The proposal would make the appeal property larger than the adjoining dwelling however that is already the case and therefore it would not create such an unbalance that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would also not cause a terracing effect given that it would extend towards Stafford Gate on a corner plot. The side access to the property is positioned in front of where the proposed side extension would be and there is therefore no evidence to suggest that it would not be retained. Conditions 10. Other than the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the elevations and floor plans for Appeal Decision 6009034 3 certainty and enforcement. A condition is also necessary to ensure that the materials match those that are used in the existing dwelling in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. 11. The use of the extension as separate self-contained accommodation and the use of the flat roof as a balcony would require separate planning approvals and these matters do not form part of the appeal scheme. There is therefore no need to impose planning conditions thereon. The windows on the side elevation of the first floor of the side extension would be stepped in from the boundary and would face towards the road. I therefore remain to be convinced that a condition should be imposed to ensure that they are non-opening and obscure glazed given the distance that there would be between the windows and the next residential property. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan and there is nothing compelling to suggest a decision other than in accordance. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be allowed. L Clark APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the above conditions. John Morrison INSPECTOR