Front and side extension and loft conversion and a change of use to side garden from part amenity space to residential use

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 January 2020 by Emma Worby BSc (Hons) MSc Decision by Andrew Owen BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 February 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/W1905/D/19/3236924 4 Crabtree Walk, Broxbourne, Herts EN10 7NN • 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 and Mrs Stewart Carrington against the decision of Broxbourne Borough Council. • The application Ref 07/19/0426/F, dated 13 May 2019, was refused by notice dated 2 July 2019. • The development proposed is a front and side extension and loft conversion and a change of use to side garden from part amenity space to residential use. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeals Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site is occupied by a two-storey detached dwelling located perpendicular to the road, Crabtree Walk. The proposal includes a two-storey extension located on the side of the dwelling facing the main road and a box dormer to the rear. The fence along the side of the dwelling would be moved as part of the proposal to encompass a strip of land between the existing fence and the footway. 5. Due to the orientation of the building, the proposed two-storey side extension would sit adjacent to the highway and therefore would be a highly visible addition to the streetscene. The proposal would bring the side elevation of the dwelling closer to the road thereby increasing its visibility in, and impact on, the locality. This increased impact upon the streetscene along with the significant height and depth of the proposed side extension, matching that of the existing dwelling, would result in a building which would appear overly large and dominant within Crabtree Walk. Appeal Decision APP/W1905/D/19/3236924 2 6. Although it is noted that a 1 metre gap has been left between the proposed side extension and the footway, and the relocation of the fence adjacent to the footway would encompass a difficult to maintain strip to the side of the site, it is not considered that this would provide a significant improvement to visual amenity and would not be sufficient to overcome the harm found. The extension would be a similar distance from the road as No.11 Crabtree Walk, which is also perpendicular to the highway. However, as a result of the extension, the dwelling would be larger than the house at No.11 and therefore would appear more dominant in the street scene. 7. The property to the rear of the appeal site, No.1 Long Grove Close, is also perpendicular to Crabtree Walk and located a similar distance from the road. However it is some distance from the appeal property and therefore it is not considered that the proposal would impact upon any specific building line. Nevertheless, due to its prominence, the proposed side extension would still have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area. 8. A number of other similar properties with side extensions have been bought to my attention. However, none of these examples demonstrate a side extension as visible, and which would appear overly large and dominant within the streetscene, as that proposed. 9. The proposed box dormer would cover a large proportion of the existing and proposed roof to the rear of the dwelling. Due to the relationship of the dwelling to the road, the rear dormer would be highly visible when entering Crabtree Walk and would be out of keeping within the immediate surrounding area, where there are currently no other examples of box dormers directly visible from the road on which the appeal site is located. Due to the significant size and location of the proposed dormer, it would appear dominant within the streetscene and give the property a top-heavy appearance. 10. The appellant has stated that a condition could be included to amend the size and location of the proposed windows on the dormer, as the proposed windows are currently unaligned with other windows on the property. However, this would not overcome the concerns regarding the size and visibility of the proposed box dormer. 11. It is noted that there are a number of properties within the area, which have dormer windows. However, none of these examples demonstrate circumstances which are similar to the appeal site, where the dormer window would be so highly visible within the streetscene due to the orientation of the dwelling in relation to the road. 12. For the reasons above I consider that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and therefore would be contrary to Policies H6, H8 and HD16 of the Borough of Broxbourne Local Plan Second Review (2005) and Policies DSC1 and DSC2 of the emerging draft Local Plan (2017) which collectively seeks to ensure a high standard of design for residential development which is compatible with the host dwelling and its wider setting. Other Matters 13. The appellant has highlighted that limited weight can be given to policies within the emerging local plan, as stated within a previous decision for a neighbouring Appeal Decision APP/W1905/D/19/3236924 3 property, No.7 Crabtree Walk. However, they are supported by policies within the current local plan and can still be concluded against within the appeal decision. 14. It was also suggested that the proposal may fall under permitted development rights, however no substantive evidence was provided to support this. Conclusions and Recommendation 15. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal is dismissed. Emma Worby APPEALS PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 16. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Owen INSPECTOR