Loft conversion consisting of a rear dormer, two front dormers and one roof light

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 September 2017 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 13 September 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/N1920/D/17/3177085 15 Wright Close, Bushey WD23 2FH  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 and Mrs Hamel and Nisha Soni against the decision of Hertsmere Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/0116/HSE was refused by notice dated 16 March 2017.  The development proposed is a loft conversion consisting of a rear dormer, two front dormers and one roof light. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 3. The proposal is to provide additional living accommodation at second floor level within the appeal property, which is a mainly 2-storey detached house situated towards the head of a residential cul-de-sac. The extra internal living space would be served by three new dormer extensions, two of which be placed onto the front roof slope and separated by a new centrally placed roof light. A third dormer would be introduced onto the rear roof slope of No 15. 4. The appeal scheme has been carefully designed to reflect the visual character of the existing dwelling, with external materials to match those of the host building. Each of the new dormers and the roof light would be proportionate additions and appropriately positioned to maintain a sense of balance to the finished roofscape. Each of the new windows would broadly line up with or successfully relate to the existing openings below. In itself, No 15, once enlarged, would therefore have an acceptable appearance. 5. However, the new built form would set the appeal dwelling clearly apart from other properties along Wright Close that I saw had generally not been externally altered or extended at roof level. From what I observed, clean unbroken lines and slopes free of additions characterised the roofs of existing properties along Wright Close, which appeared to be a strong architectural feature of the estate’s original design. Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/17/3177085 2 6. As the proposed dormers and roof light would occupy high-level positions on the host building and No 15 directly faces the approach road, the proposal would introduce highly conspicuous features when seen from the highway. In views from Wright Close, to the front and side of the site, the new front dormers and the roof light would draw the eye as the only example of such development along this section of Wright Close. Similarly, in oblique views from the road just to the rear of the site and from the back of some properties that address Verini Close, the rear dormer would be obtrusive despite being partly screened by an existing building. Consequently, the finished dwelling would stand uncomfortably in its context even among the varied built form elsewhere along Wright Close. As a visually disruptive and an uncharacteristic addition, the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the local area. 7. I saw that several properties in the area around the site included dormers and roof lights including those to which the appellants have referred. In some cases, these roof level features were larger and more prominent in their street scene than would be the case with the proposal. To reiterate, it is the specific relationship of the proposal and the context with which it would be visually ‘read’ that is objectionable in this instance. None of the examples provided by the appellants or those that I observed share the same street scene as No 15 nor were sufficiently similar with the particular circumstances of this case to enable direct parallels to be drawn. 8. I acknowledge that the new dormers would take up no more than 60% of the roof slope in accordance with key principle EKP-4 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Planning and Design Guide, Part E: Guidelines for Residential Extensions and Alterations (SPD). However, the same principle notes that the Council will normally resist dormers within the front roof unless they are an established part of the street scene, which would not be the case here. 9. On the main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would materially harm the character and appearance of the local area. As such, it conflicts with Policy CS22 of the Hertsmere Local Plan: Core Strategy and Policy SADM30 of the Council’s Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan. These policies require development to achieve a high quality of design and to positively contribute to the built environment and complement local character. The proposal is also at odds with the Council’s SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which states that development should achieve a high quality of design; respond to local character; and add to the overall qualities of an area. 10. The appellant has referred to several recent appeal decisions all of which involved new dormer extensions and were allowed. At 22 Christchurch Crescent, Radlett, the Inspector identified the main issue as the effect of an additional front dormer on the property given that the Council had previously granted planning permission for a dormer at the front and rear. The planning history of that property thus differs to No 15 where the principle of a new dormer extension has not been established. 11. At 39 Loom Lane, Radlett, the Inspector noted that front dormers added both to the variety of the design of dwellings and to the character and appearance of the street scene, which is not evident in this case. At 117 Wakefield Street, Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/17/3177085 3 East Ham, the Inspector referred to a mix of traditional style terraces and more modern buildings along Wakefield Street, which is not a strong feature of the local street scene to which No 15 belongs. From these decisions, it seems to me that their particular circumstances differ to those before me such that preclude any meaningful comparisons to be made. 12. I note the appellants’ point that a rear dormer of the same size or larger would normally qualify as permitted development and thus would not require planning permission. Whether or not the withdrawal of permitted development rights in this instance is anomalous with other properties in the UK as the appellants suggest, planning permission is sought for the new development and I have assessed the proposal on that basis. 13. Once complete, the additional living space would provide the appellants and their family with much-needed new living space that would make a significant improvement to their quality of life. The Framework notes that improving the conditions within which people live is part and parcel of pursuing sustainable development. The Framework also states that seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built environment similarly forms part of the same pursuit. This consideration does not outweigh the harm that I have identified. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR