Appeal 3301687

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site consists of a detached two storey dwelling with projecting two storey front gable feature, located on the corner of [address] and [address]. The appeal site is not situated within any areas of formal designation relating to the built environment. The initial section of [address], as you turn down from [address], is characterised by the same detached dwelling type, with only slight variations such as properties being handed, providing uniformity in the street scene. The orientation of dwellings varies to some degree, particularly on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site.

Whilst there is some variation in the design of properties in the wider area, those near the appeal site and that it would be seen with are characterised by a strong and generally consistent rhythm and appearance of built form. Part of the prevailing character and appearance of the surrounding area is that the top of the first floor windows directly abut the eaves line of dwellings. In addition, a key feature in the surrounding area is the presence of chimneys with external chimney detailing on the side elevation of dwellings. These consistent features contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would result in a roof of the same height and slope as the existing and a small increase in the overall ridge height. However, it would result in a noticeable gap between the top of the first floor windows and the eaves with the area being infilled with brickwork. The increase in the amount of brickwork above the first floor window in the projecting front gable feature would also be visible. Whilst the use of matching materials would help to incorporate the alteration, the proposal would appear incongruous with a strongly established design feature that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would have a harmful effect in this regard.

While parts of the dwelling are screened by a tree and shrubs located to the front of the dwelling, the presence and condition of vegetative screening can change over time meaning that the proposal could become more visible in the future. In any case, there would be views of the discordance as a result of the proposed changes over and between landscape features from the road and nearby properties.

The proposed alterations to the roof would result in the chimney being set closer to the resultant ridge line, however it would still sit proud of the ridge line and would be retained as a feature that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This part of the proposal would have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the area.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This is contrary to the requirements of Policies CS11 and CS12 of Dacorum’s Local Planning Framework Core Strategy 2006-2031 [name] 2013 and [name] 7 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011 [name] 2004. These policies seek amongst other things to maintain common design characteristics, integrate developments with the streetscape character and preserve attractive streetscapes. The proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks amongst other things to ensure developments add to the overall quality of an area and are sympathetic to local character.

The lack of objections from interested parties does not weigh in favour of the proposal. The design and siting of the proposal would not be detrimental to the living conditions of any neighbours, but a lack of harm in this regard does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The Council have not objected to the principle of the loft conversion, nor the rear dormer window proposed. I have no reason to disagree with their findings in this regard.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh the harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed.