59 Elstree Road, Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire, WD23 4GJ
Hertsmere Borough Council — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 22 November 2024
- Authority
- Hertsmere Borough Council
- Inspector
- Deane G
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appellant
- Mrs Mara Frisch
- LPA reference
- PP-12353620
- ONS LPA code
- E07000098
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 31 May 2024
Summary AI
The appeal was dismissed due to inaccuracies in the submitted plans, which made it impossible to determine the appeal on its planning merits. The Council's delay in raising concerns was also noted, but not considered a reason to allow the appeal.
PDF text
59 Elstree Road, Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire, WD23 4GJ — Hertsmere Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 November 2024 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 November 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/N1920/W/24/3342299 59 Elstree Road, Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire WD23 4GJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Mara Frisch against Hertsmere Borough Council. • The application reference is 23/1108/HSE. • The development proposed is described as create open plan living space and demolish existing conservatory and rebuild to create additional bedroom space and snug area. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed and planning permission to create open plan living space and demolish existing conservatory and rebuild to create additional bedroom space and snug area is refused. Procedural matters 2. The description of development given in the above heading is taken from the completed application form.
59 Elstree Road, Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire, WD23 4GJ — Hertsmere Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, revised plans were submitted, which prompted the Council to refer to the proposal in the following way: demolition of existing rear conservatory; construction of a single storey rear extension and alterations to the fenestration; retrospective planning permission for a single storey side extension; and reconstruction of existing raised terrace at the rear elevation. From my inspection of the revised drawings and the site, I consider that the Council’s description more accurately reflects the development sought. 3. In its Statement of Case, the Council has recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reason: “The existing and proposed plans submitted (drawing references: 183/005 revision P01 and 183/105 revision P01) are incorrect and do not accurately represent the extent of the existing property on-site. As such, Officers are unable to make an accurate assessment of the planning merits of the proposed development in relation to the existing property.
59 Elstree Road, Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire, WD23 4GJ — Hertsmere Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposal would therefore fail to accord with policies CS14 and CS22 of the Core Strategy 2013, policies SADM29 and SADM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2023).” 4. The Council subsequently elaborated on these matters following a request for clarification from The Planning Inspectorate. In an email dated 12 November 2024, the Council points out that, in its view, the existing front and rear dormers are shown incorrectly and that the elevations of the appeal dwelling do not correspond with each other. The appellant was invited to respond to these https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
59 Elstree Road, Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire, WD23 4GJ — Hertsmere Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposal would therefore fail to accord with policies CS14 and CS22 of the Core Strategy 2013, policies SADM29 and SADM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2023).” 4. The Council subsequently elaborated on these matters following a request for clarification from The Planning Inspectorate. In an email dated 12 November 2024, the Council points out that, in its view, the existing front and rear dormers are shown incorrectly and that the elevations of the appeal dwelling do not correspond with each other. The appellant was invited to respond to these https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
59 Elstree Road, Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire, WD23 4GJ — Hertsmere Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N1920/W/24/3342299 additional comments, and these were received by The Planning Inspectorate on 19 November 2024. I have considered the additional representations made by both main parties along with all the submitted evidence. Reasons 5. Even though the existing dormers on the front and rear roof slopes of No 59 would not be altered, the Council notes that these structures are shown incorrectly on the appeal plans. It also notes that the rear, side and front elevations of the existing and proposed appeal dwelling are inconsistent. As a result of these flaws, the Council says that it was unable to carry out an accurate assessment of the planning merits of the proposal. Accordingly, it has recommended that planning permission be refused given a conflict with several development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework. 6. The appellant says that she was not made aware of these errors in the revised drawings nor given an opportunity to discuss or rectify the issues raised. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding that the Council’s specific concerns have only just come to light, the plans before me contain significant inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
59 Elstree Road, Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire, WD23 4GJ — Hertsmere Borough Council — Appeal Decision The size and position of the existing dormers appear to be incorrectly shown on the appeal plans and the front, side and rear elevations of the dwelling, as existing and proposed, are inconsistent. On that basis, I am unable to determine this appeal on its planning merits. Even if I were minded to allow the appeal, notwithstanding the Council’s opposition to the proposal, the flaws in the submitted plans could not be satisfactorily remedied by the imposition of planning conditions. 7. That the Council should have raised these concerns much sooner in the application process is, to my mind, in little doubt. The revised drawings were with the Council for roughly 6-months before the appeal was lodged on non- determination grounds. The uncertainty associated with the Council’s handling of the application appears to have led to appellant incurring additional costs and difficulties in retaining her building contractor. To that end, the appellant has requested compensation for the financial losses incurred. However, my remit is solely to determine this appeal. 8.
59 Elstree Road, Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire, WD23 4GJ — Hertsmere Borough Council — Appeal Decision I appreciate that the appellant’s intention was, in effect, to renew an earlier approval to enlarge and alter No 59 with revised plans that also covered the side addition and front fence, as built. Reference is also made to works to neighbouring properties that the appellant says have been approved and completed. Nevertheless, for the reason that the submitted plans contain significant inaccuracies and inconsistencies, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
59 Elstree Road, Bushey Heath, Hertfordshire, WD23 4GJ — Hertsmere Borough Council — Gary Deane INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Conditions Against appellant ¶5
The Council was unable to make an accurate assessment of the planning merits of the proposed development due to inaccuracies in the plans.
External appearance Against appellant ¶5
The elevations of the existing and proposed dwelling were inconsistent, and the front and rear dormers were shown incorrectly.
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶7
The appellant incurred additional costs and difficulties due to the Council's handling of the application, but this was not considered a reason to allow the appeal.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| Core Strategy 2013 CS14 and CS22, Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 SADM29 and SADM30, Nati |
Substantial |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 22 November 2024 under the Open Government Licence.