Loft extension with dormer to rear, hip to gable, rooflights to front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 December 2021 by Rebecca McAndrew BA Hons, PG Dip Urban Design, MSc, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1st February 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/P1940/D/21/3282422 20 St Georges Drive, Carpenders Park WD19 5HB • 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 T Low against the decision of Three Rivers District Council. • The application Ref 21/1536/FUL, dated 16 June 2021, was refused by notice dated 23 August 2021. • The development proposed is a loft extension with dormer to rear, hip to gable, rooflights to front. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the dwelling and area. Reasons 3. The proposed rear flat roof dormer would span almost the full width and height of the existing roof plane of the appeal property and would not appear subordinate to the host roof. The cumulative scale and excessive bulk of the dormer, combined with the proposed hip to roof extension, would be overly prominent and subsume the existing bungalow. On this basis, the appeal proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of both the appeal property and the area. 4. I recognise that rear dormers have been constructed in the area. However, from the limited information before me, the circumstances of the properties which the appellant refers to differ from the appeal scheme, as set out below: i. It appears that the dormer extension to No 88 St Georges Drive does not span the full width of the rear roof plane of the property. ii. Whilst there appear to be similarities between the rear roof extension to 90 St Georges Drive and the appeal proposal, this is a historic consent which was granted prior to the adoption of the Core Strategy and the Development Management Policies document. Appeal Decision APP/P1940/D/21/3282422 2 iii. The information within the Appellant’s Statement indicates that roof works to Nos 52 and 172 St Georges Drive and No 49 Harrow Way have been completed under Permitted Development Rights. The appeal proposal exceeds what it would be possible to construct under Permitted Development. I therefore attribute limited weight to these in considering the appeal. That aside, each proposal must be considered on its own merit and, as such, I have found undue harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and area. 5. In view of the above, the appeal proposal would be contrary to Policy CP12 of the Three Rivers District Council, Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2011) and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Three Rivers District Council, Local Plan, Development Management Policies Local Development Document (2013) which, taken together, seek to secure a high standard of design which respects the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and area. Other Matters 6. I have considered a number of matters raised by the appellant in support of her proposal, as follows: i. There is a mix of property types in the vicinity, including two-storey houses and a number of two-storey flat buildings. ii. The appeal property is in need of updating. iii. The Council has allocated sites in the area for residential development as part of their development plan process. iv. The living conditions of neighbouring residents would not be harmed by the proposal. v. Adequate off-road parking would be retained as part of the development. None of these matters, either on their own or when considered cumulatively, outweigh the significant harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. Conclusion 7. For the reasons given, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed. INSPECTOR