Follows: “two storey side extension, 2 storey rear extension, front feature gable extension, loft conversion & detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 August 2026 by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:03 September 2026 Appeal Reference: 6011755 192 Ware Road, Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire EN11 9EY • 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. S. Tona against the decision of the Borough of Broxbourne Council. • The application reference is 07/26/0256/HF. • The development proposed is described in the application form as follows: “two storey side extension, 2 storey rear extension, front feature gable extension, loft conversion & detached garage ”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary point 2. The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ was revised in August 2026 but, in this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal remain unaffected by the revisions that have been made to it. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by such a course of action. In this appeal, I have had regard to the most recent version, of course. Main issue 3. The first main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings. The second is its effect on neighbours’ residential amenity. Reasons 4. Ware Road (the A1170) is one of the main roads into Hoddesdon from the north and it carries a significant volume of traffic, although the surroundings are predominantly residential in character in the vicinity of the appeal site. Along this part of the road, some of the houses are set back from the main highway and number 192, together with its neighbours to the north, is served by a smaller slip road, to which the property has access. By contrast, properties to the south have direct access on to the main road. There is a variety of dwellings in the area, with buildings of different types and sizes. 5. Number 192 Ware Road is a detached two-storey house, with a single-storey element one side, built up to the north boundary. It has a good-sized plot, with a back garden that is mainly laid to grass and an area of garden to the side of the house, which adjoins the southern boundary. Beyond this side boundary, a Appeal Decision: 6011755 2 footpath connects Ware Road and Danemead, to the east, adding to a sense of spaciousness. 6. It is now proposed to construct two-storey side and rear extensions, together with a front gable extension and loft conversion. A separate detached garage would be added at the front of the property. 7. Development Plan Policies include an emphasis on the importance of good design. In particular, Policy DSC1 of the ‘Broxbourne Local Plan’ (dated June 2020) is aimed at achieving a “high standard of design” and it sets out some broad design criteria that are relevant to proposals generally. Policy DSC2, on the other hand, is specifically concerned with extensions and alterations to existing buildings and it requires such proposals to “respect the character and design of the original building”. Policy EQ1 is concerned with protecting neighbours’ residential amenities (including their “outlook”). 8. The design approach reflects provisions in the revised version of the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ which, like its predecessor, aims at “achieving well- designed places”. 9. In this case, the proposed alterations and extensions would have the effect of creating a very different building from the existing modest house at 192 Ware Road. The project would have the effect of replacing the existing house with a new building. That would not be objectionable in itself, however, and, in this case, there are good reasons to consider the design of the finished new house on its own merits. 10. The proposed new building would be considerably larger than the existing house, taking up almost the entire width of the site and creating a large block, with a “crown roof” over the main part of the footprint. In addition, a detached garage building would be constructed on the front part of the site, close to the frontage on the main road. 11. The completed house would extend into its back garden, well beyond the rear of the neighbour at number 188, which is set forward on its own plot. The retained garden area at the appeal site would still be clearly satisfactory but the long flank wall of the finished house would dominate the rear part of number 188 (to the south). The large and relatively unrelieved expanse of the new flank elevation, much closer to its side boundary than that of the existing house, would impinge to an unreasonable degree on the neighbours’ outlook at number 188. The new building would not significantly overshadow the neighbouring garden, while the first- floor windows in the elevation could be obscured to preserve privacy, but the effect on the neighbours’ outlook would be very harmful. 12. Apart from its scale, the finished building at number 192 would be striking in appearance architecturally, with a bold stairwell window in the centre of an elevation dominated by three gables. The design would have some affinities with other more modern designs in the locality but it would be unlike its more restrained neighbours. 13. Overall, the bulk and massing of the finished building, together with the detached garage building, would create an unduly dominant and intrusive form in the streetscene that would be out of keeping in the immediate context and harmful to the character and appearance of the surroundings. Moreover, the proposed Appeal Decision: 6011755 3 development would have a particularly harmful impact on the residential amenities of number 188, having an overbearing effect at the rear of the property. Thus, the scheme would amount to an overdevelopment of the site that would be unacceptable in planning terms. 14. Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms, and the proposed development would make a substantial and useful addition to the existing house. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the harm that would be done to the character and appearance of the surroundings and the impact on the neighbours’ residential amenities outweigh the benefits of the project. 15. Hence, I have concluded that the scheme before me would conflict with both national and local planning policies (including Policies in the ‘Broxbourne Local Plan’) and that it ought not to be allowed. Although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision. Roger C. Shrimplin INSPECTOR