Erection of a first floor extension including raising of roof level and conversion of the loft; erection of a single storey rear extension; alterations to openings and refurbishment; relocation of existing garage and enlargement of existing hard standing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 January 2018 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C1950/D/17/3178671 10 Mannicotts, Welwyn Garden City AL8 7BW  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 John Joslin against the decision of Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council.  The application Ref 6/2017/0591/HOUSE, dated 22 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 17 May 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a first floor extension including raising of roof level and conversion of the loft; erection of a single storey rear extension; alterations to openings and refurbishment; relocation of existing garage and enlargement of existing hard standing. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a first floor extension including raising of the roof level and conversion of the loft; erection of a single storey rear extension; alterations to openings and refurbishment; relocation of existing garage and enlargement of existing hard standing at 10 Mannicotts, Welwyn Garden City AL8 7BW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 6/2017/0591/HOUSE, dated 22 March 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 001; 002; 003; 004; 005; 006; 007; 008; 009 and 010. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Procedural Matter 2. The site visit was arranged to be on the basis of access being provided by the appellant. However, in the absence of the appellant, the site visit was undertaken on an unaccompanied basis. I was able to assess the matters raised by the parties from public locations. Main Issue 3. It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the streetscene. Appeal Decision APP/C1950/D/17/3178671 2 Reasons 4. The appeal property is a bungalow located within a predominantly residential area which is also part of the Welwyn Garden City Conservation Area. There is a statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 5. No assessment has been provided by the parties concerning the significance of this extensive Conservation Area and the attributes which underpinned its designation. Based upon what was observed during the site visit, the Conservation Area contains a mix of commercial and residential land uses. The residential uses are characterised by predominantly suburban 2-storey dwellings of varying types, sizes and designs. These dwellings are generally constructed of red brick and tile. However, the properties fronting Mannicotts possess rendered walls. The residential streets have a spacious appearance with the dwellings being sited to the rear of front gardens, either landscaped or used for parking, and verges with trees adjacent to the footways. 6. The streetscene of Mannicotts exhibits the characteristics which have been identified for residential development within the Conservation Area. The property itself is a bungalow which is not of a particularly remarkable design. Although the observations of the Council have been carefully noted, I share the appellant’s assessment that there are 3 distinct groups of dwellings fronting the road. By reason of siting, the appeal property is physically related to the other dwellings which front the turning head rather than those along the west side of the road. 7. The proposed development includes an extension to the property which would create a 2-storey dwelling with additional accommodation within the roofspace. A single storey rear extension is also proposed. The proposed development would not be an extension that would be subordinate in scale to the size of the property and this would be contrary to the guidance contained in the Council’s Supplementary Design Guidance (SPG). However, the SPG can only be guidance and cannot address all potential development scenarios. 8. The appellant has identified that No. 14 was originally a bungalow and is now a 2-storey dwelling with the alterations occurring pursuant to a planning permission granted by the Council albeit some 20 years ago (Ref N6/02293/95/FP). As acknowledged by the appellant, the design of this altered property is not of the highest quality and this was evident from the site visit. For this reason, limited weight has been given to this other scheme in the determination of this appeal. 9. By reason of the mix of bungalows and 2-storey detached properties fronting the road, the appeal scheme would not result in an enlarged property which would, in principle, be out of keeping with the built character and appearance of the streetscene. It would not be a conspicuous form of development which would detrimentally affect the spacious townscape and landscape qualities of the streetscene. Further, the proposed 2-storey appearance of the property would reflect and relate to the size and form of the existing dwellings fronting the turning head. 10. The footprint of the extended property would be greater than what currently exists. However, the increased footprint would principally be associated with the proposed rear extension rather than the increase in the height of the Appeal Decision APP/C1950/D/17/3178671 3 original property to create a 2-storey dwelling. The rear extension would not be seen from the road. From the road, the resulting 2-storey dwelling would not narrow the existing gaps between the property and the neighbouring dwellings. The gaps would be similar to those between other dwellings along the road. Accordingly, the streetscene would maintain its spacious appearance and views would still be available through the retained gaps, including towards the golf course. 11. As identified by the Council, and reflecting other dwellings fronting the turning head, the property is sited on an irregular sized plot which has a narrower frontage when compared to the width towards the rear of the plot. However, the property is sited away from the frontage to the rear of a front garden and is in a location where the plot’s width has increased. The property sits comfortably within the plot in this location. Increasing the height of the property to a 2-storey dwelling would not, on its own, alter the built development coverage of the property within the plot and cause there to be the appearance of a cramped form of development. There would be an increase in the footprint of the property associated with the rear extension but this would not be noticeable from the road. The scale of the increased footprint would not, by itself, cause the overdevelopment of the plot. 12. The bulk of the resulting property would be greater than the existing bungalow because of the increased height. However, because the 2-storey element would be sited on the existing footprint and the existing gaps to the neighbouring properties would be retained, the appeal scheme would not reduce the space around the proposed 2-storey dwelling to such an extent that it would looked cramped on this plot. The appearance of the appeal scheme, its hipped roof form and its footprint would be similar to other plots containing 2-storey dwellings. There would not be a conflict with this element of the guidance in the SPG. 13. The scale and form of the 2-storey dwelling arising from the appeal scheme would respect and relate to the context and character of the streetscene, especially around the turning head, and, as a minimum, would preserve its character. There would not, therefore, be a conflict with Policy D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan (LP) and the guidance in the SPG concerning development being both informed by the wider context and sensitive to the local character. However, the Council has also identified concerns about the detailed design of the proposed development, including its chimneys, fenestration and bay windows. 14. As explained by the appellant and was observed during the site visit, the design of the proposed front elevation does take some cues from the other dwellings fronting the road. The enlarged property would retain its hipped roof form and its pitch would not be materially different to other dwellings so as to be noticeable from the road. Front gables are a characteristic of the bungalows but some of the 2-storey dwellings also possess such features. As such, and considering their limited depth, the proposed front gables would not be unduly prominent or incongruous features. The same considerations equally apply to the proposed porch which is modest in size. 15. With the minor exception of a ground floor opening, the proposed gables and windows result in the appeal scheme retaining a symmetrical appearance. The size of the windows and their relationship to the proposed eaves are similar to Appeal Decision APP/C1950/D/17/3178671 4 the fenestration of other dwellings. Chimneys are a feature of all types of dwellings fronting the road and the proposed chimneys would respect these features. Overall, the design of the enlarged property would complement and reflect the character and appearance of the other dwellings fronting Mannicotts. 16. Although the appeal scheme would not represent a subservient addition to the original property, the resulting property would maintain the character of the streetscene, especially around the turning head, and would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene and, as such, it would not conflict with LP Policies D1 and D2 and the other detailed design guidance contained in the SPG. LP Policy D1 requires the design of all new development to be of a high quality and this is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) core principle of securing high quality design. Conditions 17. The Council has suggested a number of conditions in the event this appeal succeeded which have been assessed against the test in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. A condition requiring the external materials, especially render, to match those of the existing property is necessary to maintain the consistent use of similar materials along the road. For reasons of good planning and for the avoidance of any doubt, a condition is necessary for the proposed development to be undertaken in accordance with the submitted drawings. For the reasons, given, it is concluded that this appeal should be allowed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR