Single story rear extension, single storey front extension and two storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 October 2018 by Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N1920/D/18/3208758 23 Woodfield Rise, Bushey, WD23 4QR.  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 Olufolarin Afolabi against the decision of Hertsmere Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/0814/HSE, dated 24 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 12 July 2018.  The development proposed is described as single story rear extension, single storey front extension and two storey side extension. Preliminary matter 1. Reference has been made to the existing boundary walls, fences and gates at the Appeal property. For the avoidance of any doubt I confirm that as they do not form any part of the Appeal proposal they have not been taken into account in this decision. Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 25 Woodfield Rise (No.25), with particular regard to visual impact. Reasons 4. Woodfield Rise includes a limited range of detached dwellings occupying large plots, with generous sized front gardens. There are good sized gaps between the dwellings, particularly at first floor level and the ground levels of the dwellings vary in accordance with the topography of the locality. Together these features contribute to the spacious character and appearance of Woodfield Rise and the surrounding area. 5. The Appeal dwelling occupies a prominent position within the street scene, on the outside of a slight bend and close to the junction of Woodfield Rise and Little Potters. It sits at a higher level to the adjacent dwelling at No.25 and the two dwellings are separated by their garages, which are located to the sides of the dwellings. 6. Collectively and amongst other things, the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (Framework), policy SADM30 of the Hertsmere Local Plan - Site Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/18/3208758 2 Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 (DMP), policies SP1 and CS22 of the Hertsmere Local Plan Development Plan Document Core Strategy 2013 (CS), seek to ensure that new development is designed to a high standard and makes a positive contribution to the built environment. The cumulative effect of new development, including the impact arising from intensification of residential development will be taken into account. In addition, extensions should limited impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. 7. The Hertsmere Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document – Planning and Design Guide Part E (SPD), advises that the need for first floor side extensions must be balanced against the need to prevent an extension harming the outlook, privacy and daylight enjoyed by neighbouring properties. 8. The proposed two storey side extension would project to within 1.3 metres of the side boundary of the site and approximately six metres from the side elevation of the dwelling at No.25. The proposed extension would also project several metres beyond the rear elevation of the dwelling at No.25 and would sit at a higher level to that property. 9. As a result of these factors the proposed extension would be visually dominant and overbearing in the outlook from the side windows, adjacent rear windows and the rear garden at No.25. It would also reduce the sky line in the outlook from the side facing windows at this property. For these reasons the proposed extension would materially and unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.25. 10. As well as sitting at a higher level and projecting beyond the rear of the dwelling at No.25, the proposed extension would be located to the southwest of this dwelling. As a consequence, although there would be no material loss of daylight, the proposed extension would result in some loss of sunlight through the side facing windows at No.25. Whilst on its own this would not amount to a reason for dismissing this appeal, it would exacerbate the overbearing impact the proposed scheme would have on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.25. 11. The ground floor windows in the side elevation of the proposed extension could be largely screened from No.25 by the extension of the existing boundary fence. The proposed first floor windows in the side elevation of the proposed extension could be obscure glazed and have restricted opening and the main outlook from the proposed dormer window would be over the garden to the host dwelling. For these reasons the proposal would not result in a material loss of privacy for the occupiers of No.25. 12. It is acknowledged that the proposed extension would be set further away from the side boundary with No.25 and the proposed dormer would be smaller than with the previous scheme. However, for the reasons set out above the proposal does not satisfactorily address the harm identified in relation to the previous scheme. This harm would outweigh the benefits for the Appellant and their family that would result from the proposed additional accommodation. 13. I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.25, due to its overbearing visual impact. It would therefore conflict with policy SADM30 pf the DMP, policies SP1 and CS22 of the CS, the Framework and the SPD. Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/18/3208758 3 Other matters 14. The proposed side extension has been designed as a continuation of the existing dwelling, rather than as a smaller and visually distinct addition. Having regard to the simple form of the host dwelling, this is not an unreasonable approach for the Appellant to take. Subject to the use of matching materials the side extension would be seen as part of the host dwelling and would be readily assimilated into the street scene. Although the extension would be relatively close to the side boundary of the site there would be a reasonable sized gap between the proposed extension and the side elevation of the dwelling at No.25. 15. The proposed single storey and dormer addition at the rear of the dwelling would respect and reflect the character and appearance of the existing rear elevation and so would blend in appropriately within the rear garden environment. The proposed front extension would be modest in scale and would generally respect the proportions and appearance of the host dwelling. However, the hipped roof over the front doors would fail to reflect the gable roofs of the dwelling and would have an unbalancing impact on the front elevation. As this is a minor detail, it could be dealt with by condition. 16. In relation to parking, there is ample room within the existing front garden for the parking of up to four vehicles, which would meet the Council’s parking standards, as set out in the SPD. 17. Finally, any structural damage to the property at No.25, resulting from the proposed development, is a private matter that could be dealt with under other legislation. Conclusion 18. Whilst I have found in favour of the Appellant on some matters the conclusion on the main issue represents a compelling reason for refusal, which the imposition of conditions could not satisfactorily address. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR