Appeal 3352908

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for development described as “conservatory, white PVC finish” at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 6/2023/2066/HOUSE and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as they relate to the conservatory to the rear of the dwelling only: N6, N5, N4 and N3.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials as detailed on the application form.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The description on the decision notice differs to the application form. However, I am satisfied that the original description, as shown above, adequately describes the development. I have proceeded on this basis.

The reason for refusal suggests that the plans do not reflect the development proposed and are inaccurate. As a consequence, the scheme could not be considered in terms of design. I shall revisit this matter below, as well as responding to what appear to be substantive concerns in the delegated report concerning the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The main issues are therefore the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The purpose of Part 3, 7(1)(c)(ii) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 is that an application is to be accompanied by ‘any other plans, drawings and information necessary to describe the development’. For this appeal, the application form is supported by a block plan, floor plans, and elevation plans of both the existing and proposed development.

The submitted plans have been hand drawn and are not of a style typically submitted for a planning application. However, the diagrams along with the supporting measurements give sufficient detail in understanding the scale and form of the proposal. Additionally, the application form provides sufficient detail of the materials to be used. There is a minor error on the block plan whereby the proposal does not attach to the property. However, and based on the other plans submitted, I am satisfied that the conservatory would be wholly attached to the property and that this was a drafting error. Whilst there are some other discrepancies in the plans, these are very slight. Taken together, there is just about enough information to be able to assess the proposed conservatory in planning terms.

The appeal site is an end of terraced property which remains relatively unaltered. The surrounding dwellings and wider street scene share noticeable similarities and have a balanced appearance. The proposal would be to the rear of the property in which it is uniform in terms of the fenestration and material choice. Some neighbouring properties have been previously extended to the rear which are generally subservient. These matters contribute positively to the congruous street scene and general consistency to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal proposal is a modestly sized conservatory which is to have a flat roof with a slight pitch. Being to the rear, it would be well screened from public views and clearly would be a subservient addition with a modest height and typical of neighbouring property extensions. It would blend seamlessly with the existing property and be a logical addition. Due to the reasonable height and length of the proposal, it would not result in the extension blocking neighbouring light or reducing their outlook unacceptably. In addition, and due to the existing boundary treatments and the siting of the proposal, there would be no unacceptable impingement on the privacy of neighbours through overlooking. Resultantly, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance to the area or the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

It would therefore comply with Policies SP1 and SP9 of the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council Local Plan 2023 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 which together seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and protect living conditions, amongst other things.

The appellant has raised concerns with the handling of the original application with particular reference to the validation process. This is a matter that is for the appellant to resolve with the Council directly and not for me to form a view on and/or resolve here.

The Council is satisfied that there would be no harm to the setting of the Beehive Conservation Area by virtue of the scale of the proposed development. With this and Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in mind, I have no reason to disagree with their conclusions.

The standard time limit condition and reference to the approved plans is necessary for enforcement purposes. I have not included the block plan due to the inaccuracies I have referred to above. I am satisfied that the additional location plan submitted, and the proposed plans taken together, sufficiently describe the siting of the proposal in relation to its attachment to the house. The description of development refers to a conservatory only and not the porches shown on the plans. It is therefore clear they don’t form part of the proposal and the Council do not appear to have assessed them. I have therefore not approved them as part of the plans condition.

It is necessary to ensure that the materials used match what has been detailed on the application form to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area. The Council have recommended an additional element to the condition which seeks details of alternative materials to be submitted. However, this would not be necessary because a deviation from the original materials condition would need a new permission or variation. Indeed, it does not appear that the appellant intends to use materials other than those specified on the application form.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan. I therefore recommend it be allowed, subject to the conditions set out.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out above.