1no. dormer to front elevation and 1no roof light to side elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 March 2019 by G Jenkinson BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Y1945/D/19/3219842 14 Garden Close, Watford, WD17 3DP • 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 Chaudry against the decision of Watford Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/01123/FULH, dated 31 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 23 October 2018. • The development proposed is 1no. dormer to front elevation and 1no roof light to side elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 1no. dormer to front elevation and 1no roof light to side elevation at 14 Garden Close, Watford, WD17 DP, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/01123/FULH, dated 31 August 2018, and the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the approved plans: 14GardenClse/18/01, 14GardenClse/18/02, 14GardenClse/18/03 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the de velopment shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue relating to this appeal is the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal site comprises a recently redeveloped two storey, detached property located at the end of a cul-de-sac on the Cassiobury Estate. The development would consist of a pitched roof, front dormer extension and side rooflight. The area is primarily residential and the street consists of mostly detached two storey dwellings with pitched roof dormers at first floor level and integral garages. The properties to the end of the cul-de-sac Nos 14 and 15a are somewhat of an anomaly, having been built more recently. No 16 is screened from the streetscene and does not add to the prevalent character? 4. The appeal property has some of the features of the properties within the street, in terms of materials and brickwork. However, it has been considerably extended, resulting in a double fronted property with no garage. As such the property no longer resembles the others within the street scene or I assume, the original dwelling. 5. Furthermore the properties at this end of the cul-de-sac, are all different to those in remainder of the street. All have either been renovated or are currently undergoing renovation works with the exception of No 15; although this is also slightly different to the other properties in the street as it has a detached garage. 6. In that context dormer windows are a strong characteristic of the dwellings within the street, albeit they are generally at first floor level, with the exception of Nos 1 and 14a. This proposal is for a dormer at what is third floor level and as such this is where the development would differ from the dormers within the neighbouring properties. 7. Nonetheless, as set out, the properties at this end of the cul-de-sac are less traditional in style to the remainder of the street scene. Thus a front dormer at third storey level would not be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area or the main house which has already been greatly altered, or. Furthermore, I do not consider the proposal would disrupt the balanced street frontage; this part of the cul-de-sac is not as regular in design terms as the properties in the remainder of the road. 8. In terms of the proposal I have no concerns regarding the roof light. Even if, I were to consider the single roof dormer on the front elevation to result in a somewhat unbalanced street frontage I do not find the proposal would result in undue harm that would be detrimental to the street scene. 9. The proposal would not therefore result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and would not be contrary to Policy UD1 of the Core Strategy or paragraph 8.12.1 of the Residential Design Guide which seek to ensure high quality design in new development. Conditions 10.I have had regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance when considered the conditions suggested by the Council and amended them accordingly. I have included the standard time limit condition and a condition that requires the development to accord with the approved plans in the interest of clarity and proper planning. 11.A condition relating to matching materials is necessary in terms of maintaining the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. 12.I have not included the suggested condition relating to the obscure glazing and fixture of the rooflight, as the angle of the window would make loss of privacy unlikely. The condition is therefore unnecessary. Conclusions 13.For the above reasons and having considered all the matters raised and from what I saw during my site visit, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Gemma Jenkinson INSPECTOR