Front and rear extension - Thorley Hill
The owners of No. 1a Thorley Hill, Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire, CM23 3ND submitted an application to East Herts Council for front and rear extensions under planning application 3/18/0899/HH.
This incorporated a two storey front extension and a single rear extension. The owners of No. 1 Thorley Hill were concerned that this would have a detrimental effect on their property and their quiet enjoyment of their house. They instructed, party wall surveyor, Philip Antino to carry out a detailed assessment of the local authority planning and national planning policy framework policies, the site, the proposed works and to provide advice.
Mr Antino’s findings were such that he believed that there were justified grounds to register objections with East Herts Council opposing the proposed development, particularly the double storey front extension which was within a matter of several metres of No. 1 Thorley Hill.
It was further of notable concern to Mr Antino that No. 1a Thorley Hill had already been extended substantively to the side with double storey extensions and to the rear, increasing the original footprint by some 350%.
Upon consideration of the relevant factors and the East Herts local plan 2007 policies EMV1, EMV5 and EMV6 together with the national planning policy framework submissions were made to the East Herts Council in the following terms.
The proposed front extension by reason of its scale, sighting and design would cause unacceptable harm to the amenity use of No. 1 Thorley Hill which would result in a significant loss of light and create an overbearing effect for the occupiers of No. 1 Thorley Hill. The proposed extension, by reason of its scale, sighting and design would cause unacceptable harm to the character and design of the surrounding street scene.
The council took into account the representations made by Mr Antino on behalf of his clients and reached the decision having full regard to those representations, the development plan and all material considerations that the planning application should be refused for terms as clearly set out and submitted by Mr Antino on behalf of his clients.
The Council accepted Mr Antino’s submissions and rejected the application.