Three storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 March 2018 by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W1905/D/17/3191460 52 Glen Luce, Turners Hill, Cheshunt, Waltham Cross EN8 8NW  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 Craig Hughes against the decision of Broxbourne Borough Council.  The application Ref 07/17/0808/HF, dated 7 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 25 September 2017.  The development proposed is a three storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a three storey side extension at 52 Glen Luce, Turners Hill, Cheshunt, Waltham Cross EN8 8NW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 07/17/0808/HF, dated 7 August 2017, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are the effects of the proposal on: (i) the character and appearance of the street scene; and (ii) the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to car parking provision. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a 3-storey semi-detached house which includes an area of hardstanding to its side. Whilst it forms part of a housing development comprising properties of similar design, the appeal property and its attached neighbour are set apart from the rest of the development and face a substantial block of flats. 4. The proposal would comprise a 3-storey side extension that would replicate the height and roof form of the host building and the front and rear elevations would have a window at each floor to match the arrangement on the host building. I note the significant proportion of brickwork in the extended elevations and the fact that the proposal would slightly unbalance the arrangement of the pair of houses. However in this particular context, which comprises a mix of 3-storey terraces and flats, the proposal would not be out of keeping or harmful to the appearance of the area. Appeal Decision APP/W1905/D/17/3191460 2 5. I conclude therefore that due to its design and siting the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It therefore accords with Policies H6, H8 or HD13 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011 (December 2005) (LP). Amongst other matters, these policies seek high quality residential development that is compatible with its setting. I am also satisfied that the proposal is in line with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance (August 2004, updated 2013) and Policy DSC1 of the emerging draft Local Plan 2016-2031. Living conditions 6. The appeal property is located in an accessible location close to shops and services. Together with its attached neighbour it is accessed via a short section of private road, a large proportion of which solely serves the appeal property. Although the proposal would result in the loss of a car parking area to the side of the property scope would remain to park two cars at the front of the house without the need for significant areas of additional hard surfacing, details of which can be secured by the planning condition imposed. This level of car parking would be in line with LP Policy T11 and the Council’s parking standards1 both of which recognise that reduced levels of parking may be acceptable in accessible locations. 7. For these reasons I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in unacceptable effects on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. It therefore complies with aforementioned policy, emerging policy and the aims and objectives of the Framework. Conditions 8. Having regard to paragraph 206 of the Framework, I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, a condition is imposed requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. In order to adequately protect the appearance of the property and its surroundings a condition requiring the materials to be used to match the existing is warranted. 9. Whilst the land to the south of the appeal property appears to be currently used for parking vehicles, I recognise that circumstances may change in the future. To protect the future development potential of this neighbouring land I have imposed a condition removing permitted development rights in respect of additional openings in the south elevation. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. S Poole INSPECTOR 1 Interim Policy for Residential Car Parking Standards (February 2011) Appeal Decision APP/W1905/D/17/3191460 3 SCHEDULE OF 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 and 005. 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. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows, doors or openings of any kind other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be inserted in the flank elevations of the development hereby permitted. 5) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved details of a parking layout shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be carried out and maintained thereafter for the parking of non-commercial vehicles only.