Erection of roof extensions including increase in ridge height and rear gable projection and insertion of front dormer and flank rooflights; first floor front extension; front porch; two storey rear extension and lower ground floor extension, single storey side extension and creation of balconies to rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 September 2018 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P1940/D/18/3205170 Beech House, Chess Way, Chorleywood WD3 5TA  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 Patel against the decision of Three Rivers District Council.  The application Ref 18/0594/FUL, dated 20 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 15 May 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of roof extensions including increase in ridge height and rear gable projection and insertion of front dormer and flank rooflights; first floor front extension; front porch; two storey rear extension and lower ground floor extension, single storey side extension and creation of balconies to rear. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Since the appeal was lodged the review of the National Planning Policy Framework has been published but does not raise any additional matters. Main Issues 3. It is considered that the main issues are the effects of the proposed development on (a) the character and appearance of the surrounding area; (b) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and (c) the habitat of a protected species. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal property is a detached dwelling which is situated within a primarily residential area. This surrounding area comprises detached dwellings of varying designs, heights and sizes and, as such, there is no cohesive style. The dwellings are sited on large plots and are set back from the carriageway of Chess Way to the rear of landscaped front gardens which are also used for parking. When compared to its neighbouring dwellings, the property is sited closer to the carriageway. Both flank walls are visible from Chess Way across the neighbouring properties and their front gardens. The visibility of the property from the south is greater because Hillside is a bungalow. 5. From the road, the property has the appearance of a bungalow with accommodation within the roof. To the rear, because of the sloping topography, the property appears a 2-storey dwelling. The appeal scheme Appeal Decision APP/P1940/D/18/3205170 2 includes rear and roof extensions. The effect of the proposed development would be to create the appearance of a 2-storey dwelling with accommodation within the roof when viewed from the road and a 3-storey dwelling at the rear. 6. The appeal scheme would substantially increase the size and bulk of the host property rather than the extensions being subservient in scale. However, the proposed development would result in a materially different type and style of dwelling. Accordingly, I have also assessed the appeal on this basis of erecting a new dwelling rather than just against the guidance for extensions contained in Appendix 2: Design Criteria of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document (LDD). 7. In the absence of any cohesive style associated with the existing dwellings along Chess Way, a 2-storey dwelling with a front dormer could be capable of being assimilated into the streetscene. This assimilation would be assisted by both the width of the appeal property not being materially increased and the proposed varied articulation of the front elevation created by the projecting 2- storey gable, the porch and side garage. The fenestration of the front elevation would be similar to other dwellings with horizontal emphasis of the proposed openings within the rear elevation not being seen from public viewpoints. Further, within the streetscene, the resulting property would be of a similar height as other 2-storey dwellings. 8. However, the existing property is modest in size and the appeal scheme would result in a substantially larger dwelling of a greater depth. By reason of scale and bulk the resulting property would be a prominent form of development within the streetscene. The overall depth of the resulting property would be materially greater than the existing building, the neighbouring dwellings and other properties fronting the road. In combination, the height, depth and massing of the proposed flank walls, together with the bulk of the roof, would result in a property of excessive visual prominence in views along the streetscene. 9. The siting of the resulting property forward of the neighbouring dwellings would accentuate its visual prominence, especially views from the south. The visual bulk of the proposed northern elevation would be partially broken-up by the enlarged garage. However, because the resulting property would still be prominent development within the streetscene. For these reasons, the appeal scheme would result in an incongruous and excessively prominent addition to the streetscene and this substantially and demonstrably outweighs the lack of harm associated with the other design matters which have been identified. 10. On this issue it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such, it would conflict with Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (CS) and LDD Policy DM1 and Appendix 2. Amongst other matters these policies require development to protect and enhance built environments, to have regard to local context, be of a high standard of design and not to be excessively prominent in relation to adjacent properties or the general streetscene. Living Conditions 11. As identified by the appellant, the basement level would extend the property rearwards by 8 metres and the ground and first floors would be extended by 4 Appeal Decision APP/P1940/D/18/3205170 3 metres. Above the 4 metre rear addition there would be a pitched roof sloping away from the shared boundaries with neighbouring properties. The flank walls of the resulting property would project beyond the rear elevations of both Hillside and Magnolia Cottage but would be set back from the boundary. 12. The rear elevation of Hillside has a staggered form and there is a raised deck. The proposed 2-storey flank wall would not encroach into a 45o line drawn from the point on the boundary which is level this property’s most rearward wall. However, there is a wall set further back with a patio window serving what appears to be a habitable room. The proposed 2-storey side elevation would encroach into a 45o line drawn from a point on the boundary level with this wall. 13. To the rear of Magnolia Cottage is a large patio window and sitting out area. Although set away from the shared boundary by about 4 metres, the proposed 2-storey side elevation would intrude into a 45o line when taken from the point on the boundary level with the nearest rear wall of Magnolia Cottage. 14. Although sited away from the shared boundaries, from the patio windows of both neighbouring properties the increased height and length of the proposed flank walls would be visually obtrusive forms of development which would be overbearing for the occupiers of Hillside and Magnolia Cottage. These flank walls would also be visually dominant when viewed from the amenity areas immediately adjacent to the rear elevations of the neighbouring dwellings, especially from the decking at Hillside. The potential to plant vegetation to reduce the visual impact has been given limited weight because it would take a period of time to establish and there can be no certainty of its retention beyond the normal replacement and maintained period included in a landscaping condition. 15. The appeal scheme includes a balcony above part of the basement extension. There would be the potential for loss of privacy to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties because of the opportunity to overlook their rear elevations and adjacent sitting out areas. However, secured by a suitable condition, the erection and permanent retention of suitable privacy screens to the side of this proposed balcony would prevent concerns about actual or perceived overlooking and loss of privacy. However, this matter is significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the identified adverse harm associated with the visually obtrusive and overbearing appearance of the proposed flank walls. 16. For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and, as such, it would conflict with CS Policies CP1 and CP12 and LDD Policy DM1 and Appendix 2. Amongst other matters these policies require development to protect residential amenities. Protected Species 17. As part of the appeal evidence a Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment and Emergence Survey has been provided. This Assessment identifies that the building is not currently a roost for bats. Although there is bat activity, including foraging and commuting, close to the property, the Assessment identifies that there would be a low impact bats associated with the proposed development and appropriate mitigation can be provided and secured by condition. Appeal Decision APP/P1940/D/18/3205170 4 18. There is sufficient information available to make the necessary assessment about the presence of protected species, their level of activity and the impact of the proposed development on their habitats. With the benefit of suggested mitigation, it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the habitat of a protected species and, as such, there would not be a conflict CP Policies CP1 and CP9 and LDD Policy DM6. These policies include requirements to protect wildlife habitats and not to permit development where there is an adverse impact on ecological interests. Conclusion 19. Although the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the habitat of a protected species, this matter is demonstrably outweighed by the significant harm which would be caused to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. Accordingly, and taking into account all other matters, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR