Appeal 6004130

The appeal is dismissed.

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 of development refers to the development as a three-storey extension; however, it presents as two storeys with rooms space in the roof. Neither main parties would be prejudiced by my interpretation of the scheme going forward.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the character and appearance of the area and b) the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal building is a two-storey detached dwelling set back from and facing the road. It is within a mixed street scene architecturally speaking, albeit with a pleasant consistency to conventional two storey height. Whilst there is some debate over the precise build date of the dwelling, and some elements might not be original; it is a good example of one in the arts and crafts style. It features a single and prominent focal point of a forward projecting gable with painted timber header detailing, an over sailing hipped main roof with decorative facia brackets and multiple pane windows.

These elements, along with the stepped roof shape into a sweeping catslide, combine to lend a high-quality period aesthetic to the building. Of which there are a number of largely original examples locally. The strong horizontal emphasis due to the building’s frontage width and window arrangement noticeably reinforces its historic architectural qualities.

The new two and a half storey element to the side would be large, non-subservient and eliminate the characteristic stepped and catslide roof as it is experienced across the front and rear elevations. By virtue of its height and scale, it would dominate the existing building’s otherwise more diminutive features and unacceptably compete in the visual sense with the existing gable feature at the front which is something of a focal point of the dwelling’s design. The works would also all but delete the majority of the building’s other period features such as the timber detailing to the original gable, the decorative brackets and multi pane windows. Despite some of the latter’s frames having been replaced over time.

There are a number of different style buildings locally and precise heights differ. The impression of building size is also emphasised in places by the sloping ground levels. That said, the appeal building’s horizontal emphasis would be unacceptably eroded by the scale and specifically the overall impression of the total height of the new gable at the front and rear. Along with the replacement fenestration and the use of an irregular non-traditional shape in the second floor, this would make for a building of noticeably greater substance and incongruous appearance. In isolation, the eventual scale might not be a harmful matter in and of itself, but in the loss of the above elements and in the context of the effect of the works taken together on the building itself as an example of its type, they would be inappropriate.

There are some loft conversions locally. Generally speaking, they are either part and parcel of a pre-existing readable first floor or a noticeably recessive feature in themselves. The additional storey in the proposals would, by virtue of the size and placement of its windows, appear as distinct and imposing. Harmfully disrupting the quality of the area’s consistency in this respect.

Notwithstanding the age of the Household Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2 (SPD2), it is still an adopted document and therefore relevant for the appeal proposal. It is appreciated that there is some flexibility in design schemes for detached dwellings. However, the impact of the rear elevation of the dwelling on the character and appearance of the area remains an important consideration.

Windows may be changed under the permitted development regime. However, I have not been provided with any evidence of this being a real prospect or of any proposals therefore. The appeal scheme seeks express planning permission and has been considered in such a way. The change of windows in this case would be overtly modern, unacceptably detracting from the period features on the dwelling.

With the above in mind, the overall proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with Policy DM26, DM27 and DM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies, Policy BCS21 of the [name], SPD2 and the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

The proposal would abut the boundary of Number 21 The Dell (No 21) with a small separation distance between it, the boundary treatment and directly facing window of No 21. It would present as a sheer elevation with very little interest and a substantial height which would have a close relationship with the boundary. Notwithstanding the potential that the space serving the room is a hallway, the window is there intentionally and the impact of the proposal on the occupiers would detrimentally harm their outlook and the experience of the space.

The proposed terrace serving the master bedroom would have a potential of overlooking to No 21 and other neighbouring properties. However, the small area for seating would be bound on each side by walling by virtue of the roof overhang. The presence of a terrace of this design would be no different in effect to a large window and would not give rise to additional views or result in harmful loss of privacy either within the garden or living spaces to the occupiers of No 21. Moreover, the separation distance and the range of views that would be experienced to other neighbouring occupiers would be limited to the far end of the gardens which would generally be an acceptable level of overlooking within residential areas.

Notwithstanding the lack of harm found to loss of privacy, the proposal would result in a harm to No 21’s outlook which would resultantly adversely affect occupiers’ living conditions. It would therefore conflict with Policy 72 of the St Albans Local Plan Review 1994, the Council’s Design Advice Leaflet 2 and the relevant guidance in the Framework which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that living conditions of the occupiers of properties are protected.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan in terms of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.