Described on the planning application form as part single, part two storey rear and side extension, addition of windows and rooflight, replace detached garage building with carport

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 May 2018 by Clive Tokley MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3196257 123 London Road, Hertford Heath, Hertford, Hertfordshire SG13 7RH  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 Ms C Lovatt against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council.  The application ref 3/17/2464/HH, dated 19 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 December 2017.  The development proposed is described on the planning application form as part single, part two storey rear and side extension, addition of windows and rooflight, replace detached garage building with carport. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matter 2. The description on the application form makes no reference to a rear dormer. However the dormer is included in the Council’s description of the proposal and on the details of the proposal on the appeal form (although there has been no formal agreement to change the description). The appellant’s statement considers the dormer window and I have concluded that the appellant intends that it should be part of the proposal and determined the appeal on that basis. Main Issue 3. The conclusion of the officer report indicates that the Council’s concern lies with the first floor and dormer elements of the proposal. The main issue is the effect of the first floor rear extension and the dormer window on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property together with No 125 forms a pair of narrow semi- detached houses. The front range of the pair has a gabled roof running parallel to the road. The rear roof plane continues beyond the main eaves line creating a slightly shallower pitched roof over a rear outshoot. Beyond the outshoot both houses have single-storey flat-roofed additions. No 125 has been extended by increasing the width of the outshoot and the addition of a first- floor rear dormer window. I saw that other nearby houses to the south had been extended at the rear with gabled projections at first floor level. Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3196257 2 5. In common with the extension at No 125 the proposal would increase the width of the outshoot. The rear wall of the first-floor extension would rise from rear of the outshoot and the extension would span the full width of No 123. The dormer and first floor elements of the proposal would be seen in narrow views from the street; however the dormer would be only partly in view and the flank wall of the pitched roof projection would not appear out of place. The ground floor elements would be more clearly seen but taking account of their set back from the front wall of the house they would have a limited effect on the street scene. 6. The rear-facing gable would have an uncomfortable relationship with the dormer at No 125; however it would not be excessively bulky in relation to the existing house and its form would reflect similar rear projections nearby. The first-floor dormer at the rear of No 125 already disrupts the symmetry of the semi-detached pair and I consider that in isolation this part of the proposal would not unacceptably detract from the rear of the buildings. 7. The proposed dormer at second floor level would be inset from both sides of the roof plane and elements of the roof plane would be retained. However in combination the dormer and the rear gable would dominate the rear roof plane. The proposal would result in three different roof forms within the rear elevation of the dwelling and these when read with the lower level dormer at No 125 would result in a confusion forms that would further detract from the character of the pair. 8. The rear of the dwelling is not in view to the wider public; however it would be seen from the rear gardens of surrounding dwellings. The dormer in combination with the first-floor extension would dominate the roof form and would detract from the character and appearance of the house and the area at the rear of the appeal property and nearby dwellings. The proposal would conflict with policies ENV1, ENV5 and ENV6 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007. Conclusion 9. I have noted the similarities between the proposal and the rear extension at No 129; however that proposal does not include a dormer window. The combination of the rear gable and the dormer would dominate the rear roof plane and I conclude that the proposal would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area. 10. Taking account of all matters I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. Clive Tokley INSPECTOR