House extensions and loft conversion at 43 Chestnut Avenue, Rickmansworth

What was proposed

The application proposed front, rear and side extensions, a roof extension with dormers and rooflights, internal changes, and a raised rear terrace.

“The first floor would incorporate a roof extension to the front (extending over the existing front projection), side and rear at the same height as the existing ridge to create a crown roof with a depth of 3.7m and width of 9.4m. The roof form would extend over the recessed first floor level to create a covered area. To the front the proposal would include a two storey front extension.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contains a detached two-storey house with earlier ground-floor extensions, neighbouring properties on both sides, and protected woodland to the rear.

“Relevant Planning History 8/709/74 - Garage, Bathroom, Bedroom, Hobbies – Permitted - 15.01.1975 2 Description of Application Site 2.1 The application site contains a detached two storey pitched roof dwelling located along Chestnut Avenue. The dwelling has been previously extended at ground floor level with a single storey front, side and rear extension. The dwelling is set back from the highway with a drive and soft landscaping within the front amenity space.”

“The neighbouring property to the north west (No.45) is set on slightly higher ground level to the application dwelling although the ridge heights appear to be similar height. No.45 is constructed close to the common boundary at ground floor level and is set in approximately 1.2m at first floor level. The first floor level closest to the application site is set forward of the rear elevation of the application dwelling.”

Officer report

Officers’ main assessment

Officers found that the extensions would not harm the street scene or neighbouring properties, with screening required for the raised patio.

“No harm to the residential amenities or overlooking to other surrounding neighbouring properties would result from the proposed development. Concerns have been raised that the proposed chimney would be lowered resulting in smoke impacting on the neighbouring properties. The chimney would need to be constructed to Building Regulations in terms of height and clearance however it would sit higher than the eaves and windows of the neighbouring dwelling.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Two objections raised concerns about safety, character, privacy, overdevelopment, smoke, flooding and vegetation; one response supported the revised scheme.

“The wall and gate would block safe view for exiting cars from neighbouring drive and hazard on sharp bend and when cars are parked on the highway; Gate and cross over would hinder safe flow of traffic; Gates and wall would be contrary to covenants and would not be jn keeping with the character of road; The loft conversion and dormers would result in overlooking and loss of privacy; Overdevelopment of the plot which would overwhelm No.45; Reduction in height of chimney would…”

“Fully support the revised planning application; The revised proposal mirrors the scale of many other properties on the road and would represent a fair and consistent addition.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application and the applicant spoke in favour.

Committee discussion

Members discussed the 45-degree assessment, dormer-window privacy, and whether patio screening adequately protected neighbouring amenity.

“Concerns raised by the speaker against the application focussed on the impact of the dormer windows on the privacy of the rear garden at number 47. A previous refusal for dormer windows at a different property near the site on the grounds of inappropriateness was cited.”

“In response to a Committee Member’s questions, the Planning Officer reported that the screening required by Condition 5 was considered to be an acceptable mitigation for the impact on neighbours of the raised patio and the raised patio would not result in harm to neighbouring amenity. Details of the screening were conditioned to be supplied to officers in order to ensure that this objective was met.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted to grant permission, with eight votes in favour, none against and one abstention.

“Councillor Whately-Smith moved, and Councillor Cooper seconded, that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.”

“On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 8 for, 0 against, 1 abstention.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions.

“That planning permission be granted subject to conditions.”

Minutes

Conditions attached

Conditions covered the implementation period, approved plans, matching materials, tree protection, patio screening and restrictions on additional flank openings.

“The protective measures, including fencing, shall be undertaken in full accordance with the approved scheme before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of development, and shall be maintained as approved until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.”

“C5 Prior to the first use of the rear patio hereby permitted, details of screening to a height of 1.8m as measured from the surface of the raised patio to be erected along the flank elevations of the raised patio shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The screening shall be erected prior to the first use of the patio in accordance with the approved details, and maintained as such thereafter.”

Officer report