Construction of a single- and two-storey rear extension, and the raising of the roof height to form a loft conversion with a rear dormer and front velux windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 July 2018 by J D Westbrook BSc(hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28th August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A1910/D/18/3203044 33 Kingsland Road, Hemel Hempstead, HP1 1QD  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 Chris Barton against the decision of Dacorum Borough Council.  The application Ref 4/00060/FHA, dated 9 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 7 March 2018.  The development proposed is the construction of a single- and two-storey rear extension, and the raising of the roof height to form a loft conversion with a rear dormer and front velux windows. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a single- and two-storey rear extension, and the raising of the roof height to form a loft conversion with a rear dormer and front velux windows at 33 Kingsland Road, Hemel Hempstead, HP1 1QD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 4/00060/FHA, dated 9 January 2018, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following 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: Location Plan, Drawing Nos 84 2017 (dated 18 October 2017) and 84a 2017 (dated 28 February 2018). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Procedural Matter 2. There has been some confusion regarding the relevant plans relating to the proposed extensions, in that there are two plans bearing the same number but with different dates. For the avoidance of doubt, the correct plan as assessed by the local planning authority in determining the application has the reference 84a 2017 and is dated 28 February 2018, and this is the plan I have referred to in my considerations in this case. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed extensions on the character and appearance of the area around Kingsland Road. Appeal Decision APP/A1910/D/18/3203044 2 Reasons 4. No 33 is an end-terraced house situated on the southern side of Kingsland Road. Kingsland Road is characterised by a mix of mainly two-storey semi- detached and terraced houses with a range of designs. Nos 25 – 31 comprise two pairs of semi-detached houses of similar general design to No 33, whilst Nos 33 – 47 are two short rows of terraced houses, again of similar general design. From my visit, it would appear that the rear of the houses along this part of the road generally have a two-storey outrigger of differing lengths and sizes, and there is a range of other smaller rear extensions along this part of the road. Nos 25 and 29 have dormer extensions. Nos 41 – 47 have raised parapets above the party walls. Nos 25 – 31 have a steeper pitch to their roofs than that at No 33 and the neighbouring houses to the east. 5. The proposed development would involve the construction of a long, single- storey extension at the rear, some 7 metres in depth, with a first floor element above part of it, around 2.5 metres deep. The ground floor would effectively wrap around the existing rear extension and the first floor would project above it to a similar depth as the existing outrigger, but extending the full width of the house. There would be a dormer window inserted into the rear roof slope which would entail a small increase in the height of the main roof ridge. This increase in height would be created by extending the front roof pitch. The dormer would occupy the full width of the roof, but would be set well back from the eaves. The ground-floor of the rear extension would feature a small set-in element part way along its length which would break up the line of the side elevation. 6. The Council contends that the proposed two storey rear extension, by reason of its size, height, width and unsympathetic roof form, would fail to maintain the modest proportions and scale of the existing dwelling, would destroy the established grain of development through the loss of the regular courtyard indentations, and would disrupt the rhythm of the terrace to the detriment of the street scene and the character of the dwelling. However, there would appear to be a number of large rear extensions along this part of the road, and the two-storey element at No 33 would be relatively small. It would not project as far to the rear as that at No 31, and it would be only around as deep as that at No 35. Whilst it would have a pitched roof, other outriggers in the vicinity also have full pitched roofs whilst others have mono-pitched roofs. The proposed set-in within the side elevation of the ground floor of the rear extension would create a small courtyard effect which would, to a certain degree, mirror the nature of the rear extension at No 31. 7. On this basis, the proposed rear extension would not appear out of character with its surroundings along this part of the road, and it would not be readily visible in the street scene. The two-storey element would be no larger than many other examples in the vicinity and would not be harmful to the character of the host property. 8. The Council also contends that the proposed raised roof and associated roof addition, by reason of its size, height, position and materials, and the resultant unsympathetic roof form, would disrupt the consistent roofline of the existing terrace and would appear as dominant and obtrusive feature to the design of the dwelling and harmful to the character of the terrace and the street scene. However, the roof would be raised by only a very small amount, and since it Appeal Decision APP/A1910/D/18/3203044 3 would be raised by virtue of a continuation of the roof pitch, it would not appear prominent in the roofscape. In any case, the roofs in the vicinity display little commonality or consistency. Those at Nos 25 – 31 have a steeper pitch than those of Nos 33 and beyond, whilst the roofs of Nos 41 -47 are punctuated with parapets above the party walls. Moreover, the narrowness of the gap between Nos 31 and 33, together with the additional height of the roof at No 31, would ensure that the proposed dormer extension would not be readily visible in the street scene. 9. In the light of the above, I find that the proposed dormer extension would not appear as a dominant or obtrusive feature and it would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the host property, the rest of the terrace, or the wider street scene. 10. In conclusion, I find that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character of appearance of the area around Kingsland Road. It would not, therefore, conflict with Policy CS12 of the Council’s Core Strategy which requires development to integrate with the streetscape character and respect adjoining properties. In addition, it would not significantly conflict with guidelines in Appendix 7 to the Council’s Local Plan, which requires small-scale house extensions to harmonise with the existing house and the surrounding area. Conditions 11. I have attached a condition relating to plans because it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have attached a further condition relating to materials in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. J D Westbrook INSPECTOR