First floor side extension and alterations to conservatory roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 September 2018 by Andrew Smith BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3207715 2 Beech Close, Ware SG12 9NQ  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 Claire White against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council.  The application Ref 3/18/0947/HH, dated 8 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 June 2018.  The development proposed is a first floor side extension and alterations to conservatory roof. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side extension and alterations to conservatory roof at 2 Beech Close, Ware SG12 9NQ, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 3/18/0947/HH, dated 8 April 2018, 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: P.001 Location Plan; P.002 Existing and Proposed Site Plan; P.003 Existing and Proposed Plans; P.004 Existing and Proposed Elevations. 3) The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the construction of the existing building. Procedural Matters 2. At paragraph 1 above I have adopted the description of the development from the Council’s decision notice as it is precise. There is nothing before me to suggest that any concerns have been raised with respect to the proposed conservatory roof alterations, I have therefore not considered these further in my reasoning. 3. Since the submission of the appeal, a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) has been published by the Government. This is a material consideration in planning decisions. In relation to the main issues in this appeal, Government policy has not materially changed and it was not therefore necessary to invite any further comments from the parties involved. 4. Recently, the East Herts District Plan (the District Plan) has been adopted. The main parties were written to inviting comments on what bearing the adoption Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3207715 2 has on this appeal, and I have taken their comments into consideration in my decision. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed first floor side extension upon the character and appearance of the appeal property and its surroundings. Reasons 6. Beech Close runs from Hoe Lane and provides access to 6 residential properties (including 32 Hoe Lane near to the entrance to the Close). The 5 properties located to the rear of 32 Hoe Lane, including the appeal property (No 2), are 2 stories in scale and detached. The appearance of individual dwellings is varied, particularly as building materials and fenestration differ within the street scene. 7. Of the 5 Beech Close properties, only 1 Beech Close (No 1) is positioned on the same orientation as No 2. An integral double garage of single storey height serves No 2 and is positioned to the side and adjacent to the grounds of No 1. The 3 remaining properties – 3, 4 and 5 Beech Close are located at the end of the Close and are set across close to the full width of their respective plots. 8. The proposed first floor extension would be positioned above the appeal property’s garage and would be a relatively small addition to the existing dwelling that matches the pitch of the dwelling’s roof and would be constructed from a matching palette of external facing materials. It would also follow the existing building lines of the garage so as to be set behind the main front building line of No 2 and a short distance away from the side boundary of the appeal site. Its ridge height would also be set beneath the full ridge height of No 2, meaning that it has been designed to appear subservient to the main dwelling. The proposal would appropriately respect the character and appearance of the appeal property therefore. 9. Whilst the extension would provide an additional storey of development to the side of the site and adjacent to No 1, it would not have a visually negative effect upon the appearance of the host building. This is because of its limited scale. The proposal would not disrupt any distinct pattern or wider rhythm of development. The resultant development would not appear unduly large or out of place in light of the relationships observed between the host building and dwellings nearby. A separation distance, albeit narrow, would be retained between Nos 1 and 2 upon the same alignment already provided by the appeal site’s garage. 10. Protected mature trees line the rear boundary of the appeal site and contribute to the character of the area. Views of the trees over No 2, for example from the opposing side of Beech Close and beyond, would be slightly impeded by the proposal. Nonetheless, views would continue to be available from a wide variety of vantages in the vicinity of the appeal site. Whilst I note concerns about the effect of the development upon views of the trees, I find that the proposal would have a very minimal impact on the visual contribution made by the trees to the character of the area. 11. The proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property or its surroundings. The proposal complies with Policies DES4 and HOU11 of the District Plan in so far as these policies require that all development proposals, including extensions to existing buildings, must be of a Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3207715 3 high standard of design and layout to reflect and promote local distinctiveness, and that side extensions at first floor level or above should ensure appropriate space is left between the flank wall of the extension and the common curtilage with a neighbouring property. Conditions 12. I have specified the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition is necessary to ensure that the external surfaces of the proposal match existing building materials so as to safeguard the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and its surroundings. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Andrew Smith INSPECTOR