Two storey side and single storey rear extensions, front porch and enlargement and alterations to rear dormer from flat roof to pitched

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 September 2017 by Mrs J Wilson BA BTP MRTPI DMS Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 16th October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/N1920/D/17/3177738 23 Woodfield Rise, Bushey WD23 4QR  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 Folabi Olufolarin against the decision of Hertsmere Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/0453/HSE, dated 6 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 May 2017.  The development proposed is described as two storey side and single storey rear extensions, front porch and enlargement and alterations to rear dormer from flat roof to pitched. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the local area; and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 25 Woodfield Rise with particular regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. Whilst the street scene is not characterised by any particular style, as houses have been altered or extended over time, in this case the proposed extension would add almost half the width of the existing building up to the property boundary taking in all of the existing garage and passageway. The rear dormer would increase to the full width of the enlarged house to incorporate a shallow pitched rather than flat roof. 4. These changes would result in a substantial increase to the bulk and massing of the property which would be out of scale and character with the composition and layout of nearby dwellings. In particular, because of the close relationship of the side extension with neighbouring property and its bulk, it would unacceptably erode the visual gap between dwellings and compromise the spaciousness of the street scene. This would be at odds with the guidance in Hertsmere’s adopted Planning and Design Guide Part E (SPD). I also saw that more recent examples have been set away from the boundary and which are in line with the objective of SPD to prevent extensions creating a terracing effect. Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/17/3177738 2 5. Whilst the dormer would not be prominent in the street scene, in private views it would dominate the rear roof slope and, in my assessment, its scale and bulk would fail to relate well to the original building and would mark it as poor in terms of its design quality. It is argued by the appellant that the existing flat roofed dormer, which already occupies all of the existing rear roofslope, is of poor construction and that the new design of the dormer is symmetrically located in respect of the enlarged dwelling. However, the current condition of the dormer does not justify the visual harm arising from the massing and scale of the proposed alterations. 6. For the above reasons the proposal would introduce dominant and incongruous additions to the property the cumulative effect of which would erode the extent of undeveloped space at the side of the property. The resultant effect would be cramped development, at odds with, and harmful to, the visual integrity of the building and the character of the wider area. The proposal would thus be in conflict with: Policy CS22 of the Hertsmere Core Strategy (2013); Policy SADM30 of the Adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016) (SADM) and Part E of the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework which amongst other things seek to ensure high quality design and ensure that development respects, enhances or improves the visual amenity of the area in respect of its scale, mass, bulk, height and urban form. Living Conditions 7. The proposed side and dormer extension would result in the rear elevation of the dormer being well behind that of the adjacent property at No 25 Woodfield Rise. The side of the dormer would be set directly on the boundary and owing to its height and position, would have the effect of a two storey extension. It would breach a 45 degree line from the windows of the neighbouring property which would have a harmful oppressive effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent property. 8. I have found that the size and scale of the enlarged dormer would be both prominent and dominant. It would clearly breach the design principles of the SPD which seeks to ensure that dormers are as small as possible, should take up no more than 60% of the roof slope and should not impinge on the outlook from the windows of neighbouring property. 9. For these reasons the proposal would erode the space between the dwelling and its neighbour at No 25 Woodfield Rise and cause an unacceptable loss of outlook to the occupiers of that property in conflict with Policy SADM30 of the SADM and Part E of the SPD which together seek to ensure that the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties are not adversely affected by development. Other Matters 10. The appellant highlights that the Council while in discussions during the application process, made no mention of the canopy which is similar to those found on adjoining properties. He feels a refusal was severe in that this has now resulted in an appeal. I have not been provided with evidence of the Council’s view on the issue of a porch so I cannot be sure what advice was given. Nevertheless I am clear that the porch forms part of a much larger scheme which I have found unacceptable for the reasons set out. Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/17/3177738 3 Conclusion 11. For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed Janet Wilson INSPECTOR