Rear extension and loft conversion at The Elms, Letchmore Heath, Watford

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing rear extension, building rear extensions, converting the loft and adding dormers and front rooflights.

“DEVELOPMENT Demolition of existing rear extension. Construction of part single, part two storey rear extension. Conversion of loft to habitable space to include rear dormer and insertion of 2x front rooflights.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The semi-detached house is in the Green Belt and conservation area, beside a Grade II listed building and within a varied historic village setting.

“The application site is located within the Letchmore Heath Conservation Area and Green Belt.”

“The site lies adjacent to the Old Bakery Cottage, a Grade II listed building (List Entry Number: 1103616), placing the development within its setting.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history for the site.

“RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: No relevant planning history.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council, village trust and residents objected over Green Belt development, heritage harm, scale, light, privacy, parking and construction impacts.

“- Disproportionate scale for the modest house with no very special circumstances to justify Green Belt development - Heritage harm to Grade II listed Old Bakery Cottage's setting due to close proximity (6m courtyard separation) - Unique layout creates complex courtyard arrangement with properties facing multiple directions, not just linear street frontage - Old Bakery Cottage: Loss of light/views from sloped wall removal, privacy loss from new windows - The Old Bakery:…”

“Officer Response: The site's location within both the Green Belt and Conservation Area is acknowledged and has been comprehensively assessed in this report, including evaluation of design quality, scale, massing, and impact on both designations. Impacts on neighbouring amenity including privacy and loss of light have been thoroughly considered and appropriately addressed through the assessment process. A site visit was undertaken in May 2025.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application on behalf of herself and residents, while the applicant spoke in support.

Members’ discussion

Members questioned construction access, heard that a management plan could control construction, and considered the benefits of renovating the house to outweigh the harms.

“Members queried how the access to the left-hand side of the site near the Bakery would be sufficient for construction. Officers suggested a Construction Management Plan could be imposed to outline exactly how construction would be conducted safely.”

“Members considered the benefits to outweigh the harms and that the renovation of the subject dwelling house was beneficial for this area.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted eight for, three against and one abstention on the amended recommendation.

“It was proposed by: Councillor C Myers, seconded by Councillor R Georgiou that the recommendations as set out in the report as amended be agreed.”

“For: (8 total) - Councillors M Amron, G Briski, R Georgiou, C Gray, A Kaza, C Myers, P Richards and N Susman Against: (3 total) - Councillors M Handley, D Lambert and S Quilty Abstain: (1 total) - Councillor M Allen Total votes cast: 12”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Permission was granted subject to the listed conditions and an additional Construction Management Plan condition.

“RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED subject to conditions and subject to the inclusion of a condition to the Construction Management Plan.”

Minutes

Conditions attached

The permission included time, approved plans, materials and privacy conditions, including obscure non-opening rear dormer windows.

“The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved plans and drawings listed in this decision notice, other than where those details are altered pursuant to the conditions of this planning permission:”

“The rear dormer windows to be created in the rear elevation shall be in fully obscure glass (to Pilkington Level 3 or equivalent) and non-opening below a height of 1.7 metres measured from the internal finished floor level. The windows shall not thereafter be altered in any way without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.”

Officer report