Loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 July 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W1905/D/18/3199665 7 Station Road, Broxbourne EN10 7AA • 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 Arora against the decision of Broxbourne Borough Council. • The application Ref 07/17/1239/HF was refused by notice dated 26 February 2018. • The development proposed is a loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is one of a pair of hip-ended semi-detached houses that addresses Station Road within an area of mixed character. It has a cat slide roof at the front and a 2-storey side addition with a ridge set at a lower level than that of the main house. In the area around the site, buildings vary in size, style, height and appearance. Consequently, there is variety to the existing built form in the street scene and the local area to which No 7 belongs. 4. The proposal is to erect a hip to gable extension to the main house and to place a flat roof dormer onto the extended main rear roof slope. The roof of the existing side addition would also be altered to include a largely hipped end, a noticeably higher ridgeline and a steeper pitch to the side roof slope. In doing so, the appellant states that the proposal is intended to make the flank wall more closely look like a regular hipped end. However, the various changes, taken together, would result in an awkward juxtaposition of rooflines with gable, hipped and flat roofs all evident in close proximity and the slope of the side roofs set at different angles. As a result, the roof of the completed dwelling would be uneasy on the eye and obtrusive from Station Road just in front of the site. 5. The overall visual effect of the proposed development would also be to give disproportionate bulk to the upper part of the house. In doing so, the appeal scheme would further imbalance the pair of which No 7 forms part, which appears to largely retain its original built form and detailing. The main outcome would be an incongruous addition to the host building, which would Appeal Decision APP/W1905/D/18/3199665 2 detract from the character and appearance of it, the pair and the local street scene even when seen among the varied existing built form. 6. At the rear, the new dormer would have a flat roof and occupy almost the entire width of the main rear roof. Although modest in height, it would visually dominate the appearance of the back of the house due to its considerable width. Its long and narrow form would create a linear feature at high level that would relate uneasily with the shape of the host roof, with its gable and hipped ends, and the proportions of the host building. This part of the proposal would not be visible in the street scene, but it would be prominent from the rear garden of the attached dwelling. I consider that it would detract significantly from the character, scale and appearance of the dwelling as originally built, and from others in the locality. 7. I saw that some properties in the area around the site had been extended and altered to include gable ends and dormers. Most of the examples I observed exemplify the harm to which I have referred. These examples do not add material support to the proposal, such as to outweigh the significant and lasting harm that would come from the inappropriate enlargement that it would entail. 8. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host building and the local area. As such, it conflicts with Policies H6, HD13, HD14 and HD16 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review 2001-2011. These policies aim to ensure that residential extensions are compatible with the parent building and that development incorporates high quality design that reflects local character. It is also at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which emphasises the importance of always seeking to secure high quality design. The Framework also states that development should respond to local character and add to the overall qualities of an area. 9. Once complete, the proposal would create additional accommodation in the roof space of No 7 that in turn would enhance the living conditions of the appellant. It would also make efficient use of the appeal property. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified. 10. I note that the appellant held productive discussions with the Case Officer, which culminated in some changes to the scheme and a recommendation that planning permission should be granted. However, the Council’s Development Management Service Manager and the Chairman of the Planning and Regulatory Committee considered otherwise and determined that the proposal was unacceptable for the reasons given in the refusal reason. Having assessed the proposal on its own merits, and taken into account all of the evidence before me, I, too, reach the same decision. Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out above, and taking into account the absence of objections from others, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR