First-floor side extension at 2 Arundel Road, Abbots Langley

What was proposed

The application sought a first-floor side extension above the existing garage, with a gabled roof and matching materials.

“The site frontage includes a driveway for 2 vehicles. Along the northern flank of the dwelling, there is a vehicle crossover with a dropped kerb and access. Adjacent to this is a strip of grass that follows the curve alongside the highway edge. The application dwelling has a gable roof with a front gable feature and a garage to the side. To the rear, there is a conservatory.”

“The proposed first floor side extension would be located above the existing garage. It would have a maximum width of 3m and maximum depth of 6.3m. It would have a stepped rear wall, increasing in depth away from the boundary with No. It would have a gabled roof formation with a height of 6.8m, set down from the existing ridge line by 0.6m. The extension would be finished in materials to match the existing dwelling.”

Officer report

The site

The site contains a detached dwelling with an attached garage, a garden, parking and fencing, beside residential housing and a country park.

“Description of Application Site 2.1 As shown within the red line on the submitted location plan 2438-SK-101 REV B, the site known as 2 Arundel Road comprises an irregularly shaped plot on the western side of Arundel Road. The site contains a detached dwelling with an attached garage and a garden which wraps around the side to the rear. The garden is enclosed by closed-boarded fencing.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A similar earlier application was refused, while a loft conversion certificate was approved and a certificate concerning residential land use was refused.

“Relevant Planning History 1.1 25/0668/CLPD - Certificate of Lawfulness Proposed Development: Loft conversion including rear dormer and front rooflights. Approved. 1.2 24/0980/CLED - Certificate of Lawfulness Existing Development: Use of grassed area of land as residential land. Refused. Appeal lodged and in progress. LPA reference 24/0030/REF. PINS reference APP/P1940/X/24/3350733.”

“The proposed garage would also appear prominent, contrived and out of character with the streetscene. The development would therefore be contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (adopted July 2013).”

Officer report

Design and neighbour impact

The extension would sit one metre from the boundary, be lower than the existing ridge and use matching materials, limiting visual and neighbour harm.

“This would not comply with the guidance within Appendix 2 which indicates that 1.2m from the boundary would generally be an acceptable separation distance. The side extension would be flush with the front wall and would not extend the full flank depth of the dwelling. It would also be noticeably set down from the ridge line, adding some appearance of subordination to the development.”

“The extension would also be set down from the existing ridge line, subservient to the existing dwelling. When considering these factors, the proposed extension would not be overbearing or an intrusive form of development as experienced by this neighbour. Turning to loss of light and overshadowing, this neighbour is set forward of the host dwelling, however, is located south of the proposed extension. This would therefore limit any overshadowing.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer confirmed there were no updates and explained the differences between the refused and current schemes.

Members’ discussion

Members noted that the parish council and consultation respondents had raised no objections.

“Committee members noted that there had been no objections from the Parish Council, and no objections in response to the consultation.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to grant permission subject to conditions was carried unanimously.

“Councillor Lloyd moved, and Councillor Gazzard seconded, that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. On being put to the vote this was carried unanimously.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions.

“RESOLVED: that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.”

Minutes