Ground and first floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2016 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) DiP TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 10 January 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/N1920/D/16/3161705 No. 1 West View Gardens, Elstree, Herts WD6 3DD  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Crowley against the decision of Hertsmere Borough Council.  The application ref: 16/0860/HSE, dated 28 April 2016, was refused by notice dated 8 August 2016.  The development proposed is a ground and first floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. As the spelling of the appellant’s surname is unclear on the application form, I have taken it from the appeal form. Although on both forms the road name is given as ‘West View Garden’, it is shown as ‘West View Gardens’ on the submitted OS plan, and is similarly spelt on the road signs. I have therefore used that spelling in my heading. 3. At section H of the appeal form it is indicated that a planning obligation will be submitted. However, I have no such document before me, and, on the basis of the available evidence, I see no reason why one would be required. 4. The decision notice refers to policy SADM31 of the Hertsmere Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (Submission version) 2015. I understand that the Plan was adopted in November 2016, after the decision on this application was made. Consequently, both principal parties were given the opportunity to comment on the adopted policy prior to me issuing my decision. In any event, although it has been renumbered as policy SADM30 in the published document, there are no substantive changes between it and the earlier version. I refer to it as policy SADM30 in this decision. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area, including whether or not it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Elstree Conservation Area. Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/16/3161705 2 Reasons Character and appearance 6. No. 1 West View Gardens (‘No. 1’) is the last dwelling in a short two storey terrace towards the end of the cul-de-sac. The dwellings in that terrace, and in the longer terrace opposite, are built to a very consistent design and with similar materials. To the front each has a single storey flat-roofed projection, with a two storey, tile clad gable behind. The dwellings are arranged with a staggered front building line, such that the front face of no. 1 is forward of the others in the terrace. Given their very consistent style, materials and proportions the dwellings in these terraces have a strong cohesive character and display considerable symmetry and rhythm. 7. No. 1 has an attached flat-roofed garage to the side. The proposal would involve extensions to that structure which would include the creation of a floor above. Although the scheme would not be subordinate in height and general scale to the host, as it would have a front-facing gable and could be faced with matching materials, it would broadly respect its appearance. However, the resultant dwelling’s long, unarticulated two storey front elevation with a second narrower gable, would be out of proportion with the other dwellings in these terraces. Given the scheme’s scale, and the height of its roof, which would be more steeply pitched to the front than the existing gable, it would be far more conspicuous in the streetscene than the flat-roofed garage. 8. For those reasons the scheme would unbalance the rhythm and cohesion of this short terrace and, taking account of the very similar design of the terrace opposite, it would harm the character and appearance of this area. 9. Amongst other matters policy SADM30 states that development will be permitted if it recognises and complements the particular local character of the area, and achieves a high quality design with regard to matters including scale and form. Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013 policy CS22 states that development should take advantage of opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area, whilst Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’) sets out the need to reinforce local distinctiveness and to respond to local character. For the reasons above the scheme would conflict with those policies. 10.Although the Council’s decision also refers to its Planning and Design Guide SPD (Part D 2013 and Part E 2006), my attention has not been drawn to any particular sections within those documents. Nevertheless, the scheme would conflict with their similar general advice that development should respect and enhance the character of the area, and contribute to a harmonious streetscene. It would also conflict with the Design section of the Planning Practice Guidance which states that development should respond appropriately to prevailing layouts and promote local character. 11.The Council’s reason for refusal does not refer to the scheme’s impact on the Elstree Conservation Area (‘CA’), although I note that the Conservation Officer suggested amendments to it in order to preserve or enhance the CA’s character. For my part I observed that the CA is quite diverse, and as Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/16/3161705 3 well as this distinctive area it includes commercial properties and some older buildings loosely centred on the junction of Barnet Lane with High Street. 12.Given the harm that I have found the scheme would cause to this small, unified part of the CA, it would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. It would therefore fail the statutory test. The harm that would be caused is a matter to which I give considerable weight. However, having regard to the proposal’s modest size, that harm would be less than substantial. 13.In such circumstances, paragraph 134 of the Framework states that the harm should be weighed against the scheme’s public benefits. However, whilst the proposal, including the first floor en-suite bedroom, would undoubtedly be a benefit to the appellant, I am not persuaded that there are any significant public benefits such as to warrant allowing the appeal. 14.The appellant states that this scheme is the same as one granted on the site in 2003. However, I have no details of that proposal, and the development plan policies referred to in my decision post-date it. Consequently, notwithstanding that planning history and discussions that were held with Officers regarding possible amendments, I have dealt with this scheme on its merits against current planning policies and guidance. 15.Summing up, although seen in isolation the scheme would broadly respect the style of the host property, it would harm the character and appearance of the terrace, and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area, including the Elstree Conservation Area. Consequently, having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Chris Couper INSPECTOR