Erection of a double storey front extension and front porch enlargement

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 July 2026 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010505 1 Netherby Close, Tring, Hertfordshire, HP23 5PJ • 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 Dimitri Patrikios against the decision of Dacorum Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/00457/FHA. • The development proposed is the erection of a double storey front extension and front porch enlargement. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a double storey front extension and front porch enlargement at 1 Netherby Close, Tring, Hertfordshire, HP23 5PJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00457/FHA, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Location Plan at scale 1:1250 and Drg Nos 110, 111, 210 and 211. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a two-storey detached dwelling within a residential cul-de-sac comprising properties of similar style and age. No 1, like others along Netherby Close and the adjoining Hollyfield Close, is built with a dual pitched roof and set behind a reasonably deep frontage with a driveway, parking, and landscaped front garden. No 1 has a two-storey, gabled extension across part of its frontage to the left, with a stepped back, single-storey lean-to porch entrance to the side. A similar arrangement is mirrored by the neighbouring property at 1 Hollyfield Close, with a number of others displaying versions of the same. The proposal is to add a second, slightly larger gabled extension to the right side spanning the residual part of the Appeal Decision 6010505 2 property’s original front elevation and linking with the porch, which would be projected slightly further forward than existing. 4. The Council point to an original design for the dwellings along this north side of both Netherby Close and Hollyfield Close, with consistent flat first-floor front elevations. Notwithstanding, they recognise that many properties now have been extended in a variety of ways, including two-storey front gabled extensions. I observed these for myself and noted such additions varied between individual properties in terms of size, position, and materials. None appeared to me to be in any way harmful or disruptive, instead adding interest and variation to a small group of dwellings, in a considered and sympathetic way. As such, and when coupled with an irregular forward building line to this side of the road, I could not detect any sense of regimentation or uniformity to the development pattern that was either significant or important. 5. I accept that the two combined front gables would become dominant features of the property and together they would obscure its original form. However, the gabled form of the extension would not be uncharacteristic for the area, and I find nothing about its size that would be intrusive or out of scale, where it would remain amply set back behind the property’s frontage. The appeal proposal would undeniably remodel the original appearance of No 1 in a significant manner, but I find the resulting changes overall would appear balanced, proportionate, and cohesive. They would merely add further variety to an evolved street scene without any visual impact that would be either significant or harmful to the wider character or appearance of the area. As such, I am satisfied that there would be no conflict with Policies CS11 or CS12 of the Council’s Core Strategy 2006-2031 (adopted 2013) as far as they both seek to secure a quality of design that respects the existing streetscape character. For the same reason I find no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s policies for achieving well-designed places. Conditions 6. In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A further condition is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in materials to match the existing in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 7. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR