Removal of garage roof and erection of first floor linked side extension

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 December 2018 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7th January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3204963 41 Palmer Road, Bengeo, Hertford SG14 3LJ  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 Mrs Stacey Johnson against the decision of East Herts Council.  The application Ref 3/18/0091/FUL, dated 15 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 April 2018.  The development proposed is ‘removal of garage roof and erection of first floor linked side extension’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The Council’s Refusal Notice refers only to policies of the East Herts Local Plan but I understand this document has been superseded by the East Herts District Plan (EHDP) following its adoption on 23 October 2018. The Council has since advised that policies DES4, HOU11 and TRA3 of the EHDP are relevant. The appellant has raised no issue in this respect. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene within which it sits, along with whether an adequate standard of private parking would be retained. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal relates to a first floor flat located within a block which has the appearance of a row of dwellings. It enjoys a prominent position on the corner of Palmer Road and Grove Walk. A detached garage occupies the space between the side of the main building and the pavement. The proposal seeks to build above this garage and physically link it to the block. 5. Although the ridge of the extension would sit well below that of the host building and it would be finished in matching external materials, it would be a very wide structure. The first floor addition and link would significantly increase Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3204963 2 the overall scale and bulk of the existing garage and the resulting structure would dominate rather than appear subservient to this end of the host building. The harmful visual effect would be exacerbated by the prominent corner position of the appeal property and the well ordered character and appearance of the street scene would be harmed as a result. 6. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed first floor linked side extension would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene within which its sits. In such terms, it conflicts with policies DES4 and HOU11 of the EHDP which promote high quality design that responds well to its surroundings. Car parking 7. The scheme includes a single storey section to the front of the existing garage and proposed link which would reduce the depth of the forecourt parking area. I saw at my visit that a medium sized family car could only just fit on the existing space. It was clear to me that reducing the depth of this space would mean that any such vehicle attempting to park on the forecourt would overhang the pavement. This would not be an acceptable arrangement as it would cause an obstruction and safety risk to pedestrians. 8. The appellant has suggested that amended plans, which would show the extension no further forward than the current structures, could overcome this problem. However, I must consider the scheme as determined by the Council. 9. On this basis, I find that the proposal would not retain an adequate standard of private parking and the result would pose an unacceptable risk to pedestrians. In this respect, the proposal as submitted conflicts with policy TRA3 of the EHDP which seeks to ensure that adequate parking is provided within developments along with good quality, safe environments. Other matters 10. The appellant asserts that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings in any way. This is accepted, but it is a neutral rather than a positive factor to which I attach only limited weight. 11. The appellant also refers generally to other extensions within the local area, including Parker Ave and Bengeo Street. However, I do not know the precise planning circumstances behind the examples referred to. In any event, I have considered the proposal before me on its merits and against the specific context within which it would sit. Overall Conclusions 12. I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene within which it sits, and it would result in an unacceptable standard of private parking provision, contrary to the development plan policies outlined above. The arguments advanced by the appellant in favour of the proposal do not outweigh this harm and policy conflict therefore the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon INSPECTOR