For a single storey front extension, increase in ridge height, loft conversion including hip to gable extensions, front dormer and rooflights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5th December 2018 by Michael Simmons BSc(Hons) DipTP DipUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P1940/D/18/3211235 Dornie, Carpenters Wood Drive, Chorleywood, Hertfordshire, WD3 5RW • 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. Jerzy Krzysztof Bychawski against the decision of Three Rivers District Council. • The application Ref 18/1237/FUL, dated 20 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 August 2018. • The development proposed is for a single storey front extension, increase in ridge height, loft conversion including hip to gable extensions, front dormer and rooflights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. I have considered the appeal in relation to the description of proposed development included in the application and on the appeal form rather than the Council’s decision notice. 3. There are minor elements of inconsistency between the proposed roof extensions indicated on the elevation and section drawings. These differences are not critical to the determination of this appeal. Main Issues 4. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the host property and area. Reasons 5. The appeal site is occupied by a bungalow on a corner plot within a residential area mainly characterised by two storey detached properties including those immediately adjacent in Carpenters Wood Drive and St Peters Way. The property is slightly elevated above the road. There are trees that are subject to a Tree Preservation Order within the curtilage of the property. It is noted that, subject to planning conditions, the Council are satisfied that there would be no unacceptable impact on these trees and I have no reason to doubt their view on this matter. 6. Increasing the scale of the building by way of the proposed changes to the roof-form, including the increase in ridge height and the incorporation of gables, would not be at odds with the character and appearance that generally Appeal Decision APP/P1940/D/18/3211235 2 prevails in the area and which includes some evidence of gables facing the street. Indeed, the scale of the resultant building, including its bulk and massing, would remain subservient to its neighbours. Furthermore, the extended property would continue to respect the existing building lines within both streets. 7. On the matter of the proposed dormers, there are a small number of dwellings in the locality that incorporate such features within their roofs. The detailed design of the proposed smaller dormer on the elevation facing Carpenters Wood Drive, whilst clearly viewed from the street, would not appear excessively bulky, disproportionate or contrived when considered as part of the proposed roof extension and would thus be suitably subordinate. The larger proposed roof extension that would face Carpenters Wood Drive is not a typical dormer, it forms the second level of a two-storey component. Nevertheless, it presents, with the smaller dormer, a contemporary appearance that, whilst affecting the appearance of the existing building, does not unduly affect the character and appearance of the area. 8. However, there are elements of the design that result in the proposal failing the relevant policy tests. The proposed elevation facing St Peters Way, which will be clearly viewed from the street, does present a contrived appearance. The first-floor window fails to respect the proportions of the gabled roof and this is exacerbated by it being offset rather than centrally positioned. The cropped gable is a feature that has only very limited presence in the locality and these examples are not comparable to the appeal proposal. It presents itself as a weak and ineffective design compromise. The flank elevations to the larger “dormer”, to be finished in brick, add to a bulkiness at first floor level when viewed from the street. The composition of the flank elevations of the smaller dormer is not clear. The blank dormer on the elevation facing the adjacent property in St Peters Way contributes to the sense that there have been too many design compromises with a poor overall design being the result. 9. The appellant has referred to a number of properties within the locality that are considered to offer similarities to the appeal case. However, although there are a few examples of dormers and some evidence of gables facing the street, I observed that none of these are of direct comparison. I acknowledge the sustainability credentials that have been raised by the appellant and that the proposal may well create a functional and appealing internal layout. However, these matters have no bearing on the main issue at hand. 10. For the reasons addressed above, the proposed development fails to respect the character and appearance of the locality including the existing dwelling. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to Policies CP1 and CP12 of the Core Strategy (adopted October 2011) and Policy DM1 and Appendix 2 of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document (adopted July 2013). Consequently, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. MASimmons INSPECTOR