Part double storey, part single storey rear extension

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate p Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 February 2018 by C J Leigh BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: 13 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P1940/D/17/3188602 34 Blacketts Wood Drive, Chorleywood, Rickmansworth, WD3 5QH  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 Paul Burke against the decision of Three Rivers District Council.  The application Ref 17/1582/FUL, dated 25 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 September 2017.  The development proposed is a part double storey, part single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a part double storey, part single storey rear extension at 34 Blacketts Wood Drive, Chorleywood, Rickmansworth, WD3 5QH in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 17/1582/FUL, dated 25 July 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) 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. 3) Before the first occupation of the extensions hereby permitted the windows in first floor flank elevations as shown on drawing numbers BWD 15 & BWD16 shall be fitted with purpose made obscured glazing and shall be top level opening only at 1.7m above the floor level of the room in which the window is installed. The windows shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any other revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no windows or similar openings other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed in the first floor flank elevations and flank roofslopes of the extensions hereby approved. 5) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: BWD01, BWD02, BWD06, BWD07, BWD08, BWD09, BWD10, BWD11, BWD12, BWD 13, BWD 14, BWD 15, BWD 16 & BWD17. Appeal Decision APP/P1940/D/17/3188602 2 Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. Blacketts Wood Drive generally sees detached houses on long plots fronting the road. The houses have pitched roofs, and I saw the width, depth, footprint and form of houses varies. This leads to some houses appearing wider than others, with others deeper, but from what I observed it appears there is still a consistency in pitched roofs on front and side elevations. 4. The pitched roofs running to the side of the house, ie perpendicular into the plot, are in many instances roofs over rearward gable projections and, consequently, are roofs with a ridgeline. However, there are a number of properties that have been extended and so pitched roofs are on the sides of a crown roof. But I am only aware of this through the appellant telling me which houses to look at, and also from careful observation at the site visit; essentially, the roofs to such houses with crown roofs appear the same as roofs to houses with ridges. 5. The development proposed in this appeal would see a crown roof on the new extension. In my judgement, when viewed from the side, front and rear, the proposed extension to the property would not appear of excessive scale, size or massing. The roof would appear similar in design to that seen on a number of properties in the area, and would not be intrusive into that established character. Nor would the extended house and altered roof appear harmful or disproportionate to the host property. 6. In short, the larger house and the new roof form would be of an appropriate scale and design for the area. This would be consistent with the objectives of Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Three Rivers Core Strategy 2011, and Policy DM1 of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document 2013, the general thrust of which is to seek a high quality of design that has regard to the local context. I acknowledge Appendix 2: Design Criteria of the latter document generally discourages crown roofs since, it is said, they can exacerbate the depth of properties and often result in inappropriate bulk and massing. However, the introduction to Appendix 2 explains the content is guidance and that some developments may not comply but still be considered acceptable. In this appeal, for the reasons I have given, I consider there would not be the harm envisaged by Appendix 2 and so my conclusions remain. 7. The proposed rear extension would not be harmful to the character of the area due to the very limited visibility from the streetscene and distance from the road. The two storey and the single storey extensions would not be harmful to residential amenity, due to the distance retained from boundaries and the positioning of windows. The Council did not object to the proposal on either of these matters. 8. The circumstances pertaining to this case therefore mean the proposed development would be consistent with the objectives of development plan policies, and the appeal is allowed. A condition is attached requiring materials in the extension to match the existing property to ensure a satisfactory Appeal Decision APP/P1940/D/17/3188602 3 appearance to the development. The Council have also suggested conditions requiring the obscure glazing of windows at first floor side elevation, and the restriction on further windows in side elevations, to ensure no loss of privacy, and I agree such conditions are necessary for that reason. A condition is also attached specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. C J Leigh INSPECTOR