Single storey front infill extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 September 2026 by Elizabeth Davies BSc (Hons) MISEP, CEnv Decision by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012462 20 Codicote Row, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire HP2 7JE • 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 Adrian Magdalena against the decision of Dacorum Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/00994/FHA. • The development proposed is a single storey front infill extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. 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. On 17 August 2026 the Government published a new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Having reviewed the changes to the Framework, I am satisfied that they do not affect the substance of the main issues in the appeal. Since they would not therefore be prejudiced, I have proceeded without further consultation with the main parties. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area, with particular regard to 16 – 24 Codicote Row. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. 20-24 Codicote Row (No 20-24) comprises a short terrace of seven two-storey dwellings situated within an established residential estate. The appeal property is located mid-terrace. No 20-24 is accessed by a footpath that links the dwellings in this part of the estate to the surrounding roads. Each property in the terrace has a small front garden and path. The open plan layout results in the front of the terraced row being open to view from the footpath, the small areas of green space and other dwellings in the vicinity. 6. The dwellings in the terrace are generally consistent in their design featuring a porch with a pitched roof and ground floor front window. The porches serving the respective dwellings are interspersed between neighbouring porches by characteristic gaps. A similar short terrace of dwellings (16-19 Codicote Row) sits Appeal Decision 6012462 2 perpendicular to the appeal terrace. It largely mirrors the appearance of No 20-24 and fronts the same area of open space. Their coherent design and the regular pattern of porches provide a notable sense of rhythm and an overriding, unified appearance to these terraces. The appeal dwelling appears largely unaltered at the front and given its visual cohesion with the wider terrace makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. 7. Despite the matching materials and retention of the front building line, the infill extension would merge the front projection on the host dwelling with the porch at 20A Codicote Row also introducing two uncharacteristic roof lights to the ground floor level of the terrace. Given its prominent position on the front elevation, it would be highly visible and would unacceptably disrupt the characteristic rhythm of gaps between porches and the uniformity of the terrace. Moreover, from the open space and footpaths to the site frontage it would also detract from the consistency in appearance with the nearby terrace,16-19 Codicote Row. 8. Reference has been made by the appellant to a similar extension to another dwelling near to the appeal dwelling. However, specific details have not been provided. Whilst I did observe some examples of front infill extensions in the wider area, this more often related to semi-detached or shorter terraces of dwellings, and I am not aware of the planning background in each case. In any event, those examples would not assimilate the proposed development within the host terrace or the more immediate surrounds of 16-24 Codicote Row. 9. For these reasons, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and 16-24 Codicote Row. In that regard, the proposal would be contrary to Policy CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Borough Council Core Strategy 2006-2031 (2013) which seek amongst other things that development should preserve attractive streetscapes, integrate with the streetscape character and respect adjoining properties. 10. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also conflict with the approach to maintain, improve and develop defined character in Policy HCA33 of the Area Based Policies Supplementary Planning Document (May 2004) and Saved Appendix 7 ‘Small-Scale Extensions’ of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan Written Statement 1991-2011 (2004) which identifies that extensions should maintain the common design characteristics of the row within which the house is located, should not disrupt a consistent roof line and that in a row of houses of uniform design, extensions should not detract from this group effect. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. Whilst in the settlement, there is nothing to suggest that there would be more than a modest private benefit in this instance, and so this would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects identified. The adverse effects of the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no other material considerations to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Elizabeth Davies APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6012462 3 Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. M Russell INSPECTOR