Removal of dormer roof, raising of external walls, new roof with increased ridge height, new windows, new bay window, blocking up of some windows at ground floor level

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/Y1945/D/17/3188639 100 Park Road, Watford, WD17 4QL  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 Jean-Paul Arokiasamy against the decision of Watford Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/00998/FULH, dated 13 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 11 September 2017.  The development proposed is the removal of dormer roof, raising of external walls, new roof with increased ridge height, new windows, new bay window, blocking up of some windows at ground floor level. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on, firstly, the character and appearance of the surrounding area and, secondly, on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers with particular reference to privacy and outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The proposed extensions to the property would effectively change the appearance and scale from a ‘chalet’ bungalow to a two storey house. This would have a significantly harmful effect on the character of the area, as the scale and form of the existing building is relatively unassuming in the streetscene: it is a building that is not imposing on its corner plot, where there are long views towards the land on which is stands. 4. The resultant building would appear over-scaled for its plot and would dominate the adjoining house to the north, which is of a smaller footprint. The design of the proposed works would emphasise this dominant impression, due to the use of render to the walls and tall gable ends to all four elevations. Any possible permitted development schemes, as mentioned by the appellant, do not change my view on the unacceptability of the current appeal scheme. 5. At my site visit I noted other developments in the vicinity of the appeal site. However, these fit more comfortably on their plots than the proposed Appeal Decision APP/Y1945/D/17/3188639 2 development, and do not have the cramped and obtrusive impact that would arise due to the scale of the proposals on the prominent corner site of No. 100. 6. I concur with the Council’s concerns regarding the effect of the design upon the character and appearance of the area, and thus I conclude on the first main issue that the proposed development would conflict with Policy UD1 of the Watford Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2031 (adopted 2013) and the Watford Residential Design Guide 2014 which, amongst other matters, require new development to be a high quality of design that respects and enhances the local character of the area. Living conditions 7. The proposal would see a first floor addition at the rear considerably closer to the adjoining property of 86 Langley Road than the existing windows within the roof space. This extension would provide two bedrooms, with windows looking directly towards the gardens of both 86 Langley Road and 88 Langley Road; at present the windows within the roof space on the rear elevation are shown on the submitted plans as serving en-suite bathrooms. 8. I viewed the appeal site from the adjoining house and garden of No. 86. It is clear to me that the proposed development would lead to a very serious loss of privacy to the occupants of No. 86 to both the garden and within the house. Due to the close proximity of the extension, I also consider there would be an overbearing effect on the outlook for the neighbour when within their garden and their house. I further consider the degree of overlooking from the proposed extension will also lead to a material loss of privacy to the garden of No. 88: the new bedrooms are so extremely close to the gardens of both properties. 9. The angle of view from the windows to the bedrooms do not mitigate against this harm, and planting would not be sufficient either due to the very close proximity; planting could not be relied upon to be retained in the longer term, and the height and amount of screening needed would be dominant to outlook for residents of all properties. It would not be reasonable to attach a condition requiring the obscure glazing of the windows in the proposed bedrooms, since it would also be necessary to ensure windows are not openable (due, again, to the very close proximity) and both matters combined would create an internal environment of substandard accommodation. In any event, this would not address the overbearing effect I have identified. Thus, for similar reasons, any repositioning of windows would not be appropriate, as suggested by the appellant. 10. On the basis of all I have read and seen, it is therefore my conclusion on the second issue that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of adjoining occupiers. This would be contrary to the Local Plan policies referred to earlier, insofar as they seek to ensure new development does not significantly harm residential amenity. Conclusion 11. The appeal is dismissed for the reasons given above. C J Leigh INSPECTOR