A Hemel garage has won planning permission for a rear extension, a redesigned front and internal refurbishment on Bennetts End Road in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. Inspector J Bell-Williamson allowed the appeal on 15th October 2026, overturning Dacorum Borough Council’s refusal.
The commercial workshop sits beside a home, so the dispute centred on what a larger building would mean for the neighbour’s garden and everyday peace and quiet. The business would increase its workforce from five to eight, while keeping its existing lawful opening hours.
I would read this as a decision about the additional effect of the extension in its actual surroundings. The Inspector examined an established workshop in a mixed residential and commercial area, including the height of the new wall, existing planting and where noise could escape.
Why the Hemel garage extension was acceptable
The application, reference 25/03170/FUL, proposed extending the building towards the rear while retaining its commercial garage use. The appeal decision grants permission subject to three conditions covering the start date, approved drawings and construction materials.
The closest house has a rear garden running beside the workshop. At present, the tallest part of the garage runs next to the boundary, but only a central projection reaches as far back as the full depth of that garden. The proposal would fill in the currently open section.
That change explains the council’s concern. A wall running along the whole boundary could potentially make a garden feel enclosed, even where the business itself is already established. The Inspector acknowledged that issue rather than dismissing it because a garage was there first.
However, the extension would be materially lower than the principal building. Relatively tall planting in the last third of the neighbouring garden would also help screen it, and the decision records no suggestion that this planting would be removed.
The Inspector concluded that the effect would not be sufficiently different from the existing garden views to cause material harm. On the Hemel garage scheme, the combination of a lower addition and existing screening carried more weight than the simple fact that the building would become deeper.
Daylight and outlook were assessed separately
The council also questioned sunlight and daylight reaching the garden. The Inspector considered the limited additional depth and height of the Hemel garage extension together with the orientation of the building and garden, finding no adverse effect on the amount of light.
Those are related concerns, but they need separate answers. A development may change what someone sees without necessarily taking away an unacceptable amount of daylight. Equally, a visually modest addition can still need careful assessment where its position creates a light problem.
Here, both points were resolved in the applicant’s favour. The decision found no conflict with the council’s site-design policy, CS12, in relation to visual intrusion or loss of sunlight and daylight.
Three extra employees did not establish harmful noise
The Hemel garage would employ eight people instead of five. The council had raised the absence of employee numbers and opening hours in the original application details, but those matters were clarified while the application was being considered.
More floorspace and staff could reasonably mean more activity. The Inspector expressly accepted that possibility, then considered whether the change would materially harm the neighbouring household rather than treating an increase in activity as decisive by itself.
Three roller shutter doors would remain at the rear. The extension would bring them into line with one another, instead of leaving the central door projecting further back. The possibility of noise escaping through open doors already exists.
The Inspector also noted that the doors would sit at the far end of the garden and further from the side boundary. Otherwise, noise would be contained within the building and largely insulated from the garden by the extended brick wall.
The decision found the additional employees and limited extra floorspace unlikely to create a harmful material change in noise levels. Other nearby homes, including those opposite and on Kimps Way, were considered sufficiently separated from the site.
Permission comes with three conditions
For the Hemel garage, the permission requires work to begin within three years. It also ties the development to the listed approved drawings and requires the materials specified in the application and plans.
The decision does not impose a new hours restriction. It records that the existing lawful opening hours would remain unchanged. That distinction matters: reporting a proposed continuation of hours as a new permission to work longer would misrepresent the outcome.
The Inspector described the proposal as causing “no material harm” from noise and disturbance. That finding is specific to the scale, layout and surrounding properties examined in this appeal, rather than a general exemption for workshops near houses.
The practical lesson for applicants and neighbours
I would focus an assessment of a similar proposal on the change from the lawful existing situation. Record wall heights, door positions, garden levels, planting and operating arrangements clearly, then explain how each would alter the neighbour’s experience.
For neighbours, the useful question is equally concrete: which part of the proposed change would worsen outlook, light or disturbance, and what evidence demonstrates that effect? A concern deserves assessment, but its strength depends on the actual development and relationship between buildings.
The Hemel garage decision shows how a commercial extension can succeed beside housing when its additional effects are found acceptable. The full reasoning and all three conditions are available in the official appeal decision, with the case identified as appeal 6012966. For the wider procedure, see Planning Geek’s guide to planning appeals.
0 Comments