Erection of first floor loft conversion to create 4 bedrooms, 2 en-suites and a family bathroom plus installation of three dormers to front elevation

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: 16 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C1950/D/18/3200862 28 King James Avenue, Cuffley, Potters Bar EN6 4LR  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 Lino Francischelli against the decision of Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council.  The application Ref 6/2017/2900/HOUSE was refused by notice dated 27 March 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of first floor loft conversion to create 4 bedrooms, 2 en-suites and a family bathroom plus installation of three dormers to front elevation. 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 local area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached bungalow on a residential street along which properties include single storey and 2-storey dwellings. In the vicinity of the site I saw that several properties have been extended and externally altered at a high level including those to which the appellant has referred and provided photographs. Consequently, there is considerable variety to the existing built form within the street scene and the local area to which No 28 belongs. 4. The appeal dwelling stands in the middle of 3 detached bungalows that front the same side of King James Avenue. Because the front build line of this short row of single storey properties is staggered, No 28 is set back from No 26 and noticeably forward of No 30. As a consequence, the flank wall of No 28 and its side roof slope are evident from the road in addition to its front elevation. Although there is an eclectic mix of houses and bungalows along King James Avenue, it is within this row of bungalows that No 28 is visually ‘read’. 5. The proposal is to extend the appeal dwelling upward to provide additional residential accommodation at first floor level that would be served by 3 pitched roof dormers on the new front roof slope. The eaves level would only be raised around part of the building and the proposed use of painted render, timber and slate to match the host building would be appropriate materials. Appeal Decision APP/C1950/D/18/3200862 2 6. The proposed extended building would be no taller than the existing dwelling with no increase to its footprint. It would, however, appear noticeably more substantial in built form than the bungalows on either side of the site. As a result, the proposal would cause No 28 to significantly gain prominence in the street scene. In views from the road just one side of the site, the ridge line, high eaves, deep upper flank wall and sides of the new dormers would all combine to emphasise the considerable scale and bulk of the new building notwithstanding its part hipped roof form. 7. When seen from King James Avenue, with No 30 to one side and No 26 beyond, the completed dwelling would appear overly large and bulky, notwithstanding its position set back from the road. The visual impact of the proposal would be much greater than would be implied by comparing the side profile of the host building and the proposal, which the appellant considers would be ‘minimally changed’. Given the uneasy relationship between Nos 28 and 30, in which the former would have an unduly imposing presence over the latter, the proposal would not be readily assimilated into the character of the local area notwithstanding the highly varied built form within it. 8. In reaching this conclusion, I have carefully considered the examples to which the appellant has referred and provided plans, background details and photographs, which show several properties that have been altered and extended in ways that are similar to the proposal. To reiterate, it is the specific relationship of the proposal with the adjacent buildings and the consequences for the local street scene that is objectionable in this case. From the cases cited by the appellant, all of which I saw at the site visit, the circumstances of the appeal scheme are not replicated elsewhere. For instance, both Nos 64 and 70 differ in design to the proposal and follow a similar front build line to the properties on either side, unlike the relationship between Nos 28 and 30. In any event, each proposal should be assessed on its own merits. 9. On the main issue, I conclude that the proposed development would materially harm the character or appearance of the local area. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policies D1 and D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan 2005 and the Council’s Supplementary Design Guidance. These policies and guidance require new development to achieve a high standard of design and to respect and relate to the character and context of the area. It is also at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework which emphasises the importance of securing high quality design and states that development should add to the qualities of an area. 10. Once complete, the extra living accommodation provided by the appeal scheme would improve the living conditions of the occupiers of No 28. However, this consideration does not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. 11. Interested parties raise additional concern with regard to the potential effect of the proposal on privacy. This is an important matter and I have taken into account all of the evidence before me. However, given my findings on the main issue, this is not a matter on which my decision has turned. 12. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR