Erection of a two storey front/side extension, front porch, part single and part two storey rear extension and rear dormer with three front rooflights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 March 2019 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) DiP TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6th March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/N1920/D/19/3219606 23 Auckland Road, Potters Bar EN6 3EY • 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 Ali Abdellatif against the decision of Hertsmere Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/1838/HSE, dated 11 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 November 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of a two storey front/side extension, front porch, part single and part two storey rear extension and rear dormer with three front rooflights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property, the semi-detached pair, and the area. Reasons 3. In common with most other dwellings on Auckland Road, no. 23 forms one half of a semi-detached pair. It is prominently located on the corner with Cambridge Drive. The dwellings typically display a single two storey bay to the front, sometimes as a combined central feature with its neighbour. Notwithstanding various alterations to the properties, those bays, and the fairly regular spacing and form of these semi-detached pairs, gives the area a sense of consistency and cohesion. 4. The proposed side extension would attach to the host’s existing, set-back two storey side extension. It would have a front-facing two storey bay with a gabled roof, which would replicate that existing feature in the host property. However, it would result in this semi-detached pair having three bays, which would be markedly at odds with the area’s prevailing character. It would also make the property far more dominant in the streetscene, and would give the impression of a short terrace of three dwellings. Furthermore, as the attached neighbour at no. 21 has no such side extension it would also significantly unbalance the building’s overall appearance. Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/19/3219606 2 5. Many nearby properties have been significantly extended or altered to the rear, including some with large dormers which cover a substantial proportion of their roof. The Hertsmere Planning and Design Guide Part E SPD 2006 (‘SPD’) sets out that, as a general rule, dormers should not take up more than 60% of the roof face. The appellant submits that the dormer on the extended roof here would comply with that guide. In the context of this area, and considered in isolation, I agree that this dormer would not appear out-of-place. 6. However, the proposed rear first floor extension would be above a flat-roofed ground floor projection, would have a rear face staggered between the host’s existing first floor rear faces, and would have a hipped roof whose ridge would attach part way up the proposed dormer’s rear face. The overall result would be a building with a very eclectic and discordant design, which would contrast markedly with the far simpler form and appearance of no. 21. 7. My attention has been drawn to extensions at nos. 17 and 19 Auckland Road, and the appellant has provided drawings and dimensions for comparison. However, viewed in the streetscene, both those properties have been extended in a broadly similar vein, with neither having an additional bay window feature. Consequently, the overall balance of that pair has been broadly maintained. 8. Whilst no. 8 Auckland Road has a large side extension which includes an additional two storey bay window to the front, I am not aware of any other nearby semi-detached pairs with three such features, and that example is very much atypical of the area. Furthermore, for the above reasons, and as illustrated by the drawings included with appellant’s statement, this scheme’s rear face would be very disjointed compared to the approved scheme there. 9. For the above reasons the scheme would harm the character and appearance of the host property, the semi-detached pair, and the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies SP1 and CS22 of the Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013, and Policy SADM30 of the Hertsmere Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016. Amongst other things, they require high quality design which complements, or makes a positive contribution to, the local character and context. It would also conflict with the broadly similar approach in the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’). 10. The appellant cites his desire to accommodate his elderly parents and to assist with their day-to-day living requirements, along with meeting his family’s needs. However, the benefits of the scheme to the appellant and his family do not outweigh the significant harm that I have found it would cause. 11. The proposal would conflict with the development plan, and with the Framework. It would also conflict with the SPD’s general stance that extensions should have regard to the character and appearance of the area and the streetscene. Consequently, having considered all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Chris Couper INSPECTOR