Two-storey home extension at 27 Kirkdale Road, Harpenden

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the garage and conservatory, building two-storey side and rear extensions, and adding a basement.

“The application seeks permission for the demolition of existing garage and conservatory, two storey side and rear extension and a basement.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site is a detached home with a northern garage, and earlier permissions covered previous side, rear and conservatory works.

“5/2023/1920 - Demolishment of existing conservatory and chimney stack. Single storey rear extension. Alterations to glazing fenestrations. Alterations to openings. Installation of solar panels – Conditional Permission 12-12-23”

“The application site is occupied by a two storey detached dwelling located on the west side of Kirkdale Road, which is a residential cul de sac. There is a detached garage to the north of the main dwelling.”

Officer report

Design and neighbours

The extensions were considered compatible with the host building, while testing indicated no significant harmful impact on neighbouring properties.

“The application property is a two storey detached locally listed building located within the Harpenden Conservation Area. The proposal would introduce two storey extensions to the side and rear of the property. The side extension would be built to the same eaves and ridge height as the host property. The extension has been designed to appear as an original element of the host property.”

“The development is considered to respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surroundings. It is noted that within this area of the conservation area similar types of development exist, notably that to the neighbouring no.25. It is considered that the development would preserve the character of the conservation area, and that of the locally listed building the proposed development would be compliant with policy 85 and 87.”

Officer report

Objections received

Thirteen objections from ten addresses raised concerns about character, neighbour amenity, separation, precedent, context plans and policy compliance.

“Neighbour letters were sent to nine neighbouring addresses in accordance with the Council’s published Statement of Community Involvement. Site notices were also displayed.”

“The development is out of keeping with the character of the road and the conservation area. • The development would result in harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties. • The development would reduce the gap between the application property and the neighbouring dwelling. • If approved the development would set a harmful precedent. • The proposed plans do not show the extensions in the local context. • The plans are not compliant with local planning policy.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker addressed the committee against the application and another spoke in favour.

The committee vote

The chair’s motion to grant conditional permission was carried, with eleven votes for, none against and no abstentions.

“The Chair moved that the application be GRANTED conditional permission as set out in the report. It was CARRIED.”

Minutes