Erection of a loft conversion of the existing main house roof space to accommodate a third floor and the extension of the bay window to the front elevation. Internal alterations to the ground and first floor

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 January 2018 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 19 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W1525/D/17/3184372 Norwood, School Lane, Stock, Ingatestone CM4 9BZ  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 Barry Woodgate against the decision of Chelmsford City Council.  The application Ref 17/00939/FUL, dated 18 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 September 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a loft conversion of the existing main house roof space to accommodate a third floor and the extension of the bay window to the front elevation. Internal alterations to the ground and first floor. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Although this appeal has been determined based upon its own merits, I have been mindful that there is a separate appeal by the same appellant for alterations to Norbon which could have implications for the character and appearance of this pair of semi-detached dwellings. Main Issues 3. It is considered that the main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Stock Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling which has been extended and is located within the Stock 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. This duty is echoed in Policy DC17 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (DPD). 5. No details have been provided concerning the reasons why the Conservation Area was designated and no character area appraisal has been supplied. Based upon the site visit, the significance of the Conservation Area is primarily due to the cohesive form of the mainly modest sized 2-storey properties that are predominantly sited close to roads/footways within the centre of Stock; wide Appeal Decision APP/W1525/D/17/3184372 2 verges along Stock Road adjacent to the war memorial and the open areas around The Old School and the Church where the buildings are sited in larger plots and set back from the roads/footways. The buildings are of relatively simple design with many possessing gable features; constructed of red brick and tile but there are examples of timber cladding; either gable or hipped roofs; similar roof pitches and well-proportioned and sited dormer windows erected either within roofslopes or at eaves level. 6. This pair of semi-detached dwellings are of simple design reflecting other buildings within the Conservation Area. They are set back from School Lane and physically framed by the Old School and a terrace of Almshouses when viewed from Stock Road across an area of open space. Although there is some vegetation within the front garden, the front elevation of the property is visible from Stock Road, the open space and School Lane. By reason of siting, design, form and relationship to both the neighbouring buildings and open space, the property and this pair of semi-detached dwellings make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of this more spacious part of the Conservation Area. 7. The proposed development includes the creation of accommodation within the roofspace which includes an associated increase in the height of the 2-storey bay window within the property’s front elevation. The Council has not objected to the alterations to the rear of the property and there are no reasons for me to disagree with the Council’s assessment. 8. The increase in the height of the existing 2-storey bay window and, as claimed by the Council, its elongated form would result in an addition to the front elevation which would be poorly related to the character and appearance of this simply designed property, even as it has been extended. Further, the proposed bay window projecting above the eaves level would appear an awkward and visually dominant addition that would not represent the high quality of design of the type sought by DPD Policies DC45 and DC47. These policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) core principle of securing high quality design. 9. The potential for both dwellings to have similarly designed and sited bay windows would not negate the adverse effect on the character and appearance of the property. This unacceptable harm would be clearly seen from the Conservation Area, including the open space, School Lane and Stock Road, and would detract from the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. No similar 3-storey bay windows or other gable features of a similarly awkward design extending above eaves level were observed within the Conservation Area. Accordingly, the proposed development would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 10. The proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area. However, the public benefits of the proposal claimed by the appellant, including the utilisation of the loft space and providing accommodation for elderly relatives, albeit the precise details of such a need are not fully explained, do not outweigh this harm. 11. For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property and it would also fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Stock Conservation Area. It is further concluded that the appeal scheme would Appeal Decision APP/W1525/D/17/3184372 3 conflict with DPD Policies DC17, DC45 and DC47 and the Framework. Accordingly, and taking into account all other matters, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR