Single-storey front extension at 29 Parkfield, Markyate, St Albans

What was proposed

The application proposed a two-metre-deep, three-metre-high single-storey front extension across the full width of the existing extension to provide a family room.

“This application seeks permission for a single storey front extension under a shallow mono- pitched roof. The addition will extend the width of the existing front extension to full width. It has a depth of approximately 2m, and height of approximately 3m to match the existing. The addition will serve a family room. The proposed materials will match the existing.”

Officer report

The site

The site contains a two-storey end-of-terrace dwelling in a residential part of Markyate, set back and above the highway.

“The application site is located on the south side of Parkfield within a residential area of Markyate. The site comprises a two-storey end of terrace dwelling which is set back and up from the highway.”

“The character of the area is residential, typified by post war suburban two storey houses…”

Officer report

Earlier permission

A previous permission allowed front and rear ground-floor extensions, but the front extension was built with its entrance door facing the front.

“A single storey front extension was previously granted under planning permission 23/02029/FHA, however it is noted that the extension as built differs from the approved details. Whilst the scale is built as approved, the entrance door is located to the front rather than entering the extension from the side. Generally entrance doors are front facing…”

“23/02029/FHA - Front and rear ground floor extensions to existing end of terrace, semi-detached two-storey house. GRA - 20th September 2023”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the extension’s design, scale and materials were acceptable and would not significantly harm the street scene or neighbouring properties.

“The application site is located within Markyate wherein the proposed development is acceptable in principle, in accordance with Policies CS1 and CS4 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013).”

“The overall size, scale and design of the extension is acceptable, relates well to the parent dwelling, and whilst visible, would not result in any significant harm to the character or appearance of the street scene/area.”

Officer report

Main planning effects

The extension would match the dwelling, remain set back from the road, avoid significant loss of light or privacy, and require no additional parking.

“Due to the distances, scale and positioning between the host dwelling and neighbour, the extension will not appear prominent, visually intrusive or result in any significant loss of light to No.31.”

“The NPPF (2024), Policies CS8 and CS12 of the Dacorum Borough Core Strategy (2013), and the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2020) all seek to ensure that new development provides safe and sufficient parking provision for current and future occupiers. There are no changes to the number of bedrooms as a result of the proposal so no additional parking is required.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected that the extension was too large and would encroach on a neighbour’s 45-degree view, while no neighbour comments were received.

“Objection – 9.22 Too large - in granting the previous front and rear extensions (23/02029/FHA), the planning officer's report stated the front extension was 'probably at the limit of tolerable size particularly given the elevated position of the site relative to the road.'.”

“In response to the second point, whilst the loss of a view is not a material consideration, the loss of light is a material consideration. However, the agent has clarified that this application does not propose any changes to the existing front extension close to the shared boundary with No. 27, such that the proposed extension will not result in any harm to the residential amenity of the attached neighbour when compared to the existing scenario.”

Officer report

Parish council objection

The parish council maintained its objection after reconsultation, saying the revised plans were not materially different from the previous submission.

“The Parish Council continues to object as previously. These plans are not materially different to the previous submission.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish councillor and the ward councillor spoke against the application, while the report was introduced on behalf of the case officer.

The decision

The committee granted planning permission for the extension.

“Resolved: That planning permission be GRANTED. RECOMMENDATION Recommend Grant.”

Minutes

Permission conditions

Permission requires work to begin within three years, matching external materials, and construction in accordance with the approved plans.

“Condition(s) and Reason(s): The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. 2.”

“Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.”

Minutes