Appeal 3281994

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the impact of the proposals upon the living conditions of neighbours.

Since the determination of this application the revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in July 2021.

The appeal property is a detached chalet style bungalow within a mixed residential suburban area. The property is the last bungalow within this row of houses before there is a transition to two storey semi detached buildings beginning with number [address] next door.

Number 84 has an attached garage adjoining number 86 and has a single window serving a bedroom facing onto the common boundary between the two properties. I saw on my site visit that several neighbours, including the immediate neighbour at number [address], have previously extended to the rear into their respective rear gardens.

The appeal site sits around half a storey height above number 86 and although the appeal property has a long linear rear garden, number 86 has a relatively short garden likely due to the way the plots had been laid out originally. As a result, not only is the rear garden of number 86 considerably lower than that of the appeal property, but it is also considerably shorter. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: APP/B1930/D/21/3281994

The proposal before me seeks permission to extend to the rear of the existing bungalow in a pitched roof form that will be slightly set in at either side so as to further remove the built form from the common boundaries. The proposed extension would present a full height glazed gable facing into the rear garden and would, in turn, contain a first floor mezzanine and double height space within that would be lit by four modest rooflights. Due to the extension extending to the rear in such a manner, it would also be necessary to create a substitute window into the side elevation in order to serve bedroom one.

[name] consider that such an extension would not generally cause any adverse issues, in this case, I consider that extending to the rear has the potential to seriously impact upon the living conditions of residents at number

This is not necessarily the fault of the design of the proposed extension before me, but rather the fault of the original layout of plots here that resulted in number 86 having a garden that is so short and located at such a low level in relation to number 84.

Largely due to this therefore, the proposed extension would dominate somewhat the rear garden of number 86 through the combination of proximity and change in ground level together with the height of the proposed extension. This would further ‘hem’ in the rear garden of number 86 and cause the property to suffer some loss of daylight especially at ground floor level.

The potential for harm upon the living conditions of number 86 is also worsened through the need to place a habitable room window facing the common boundary. Although the screen fence would offer some protection over this there is no guarantee that the fence would remain nor would it be practicable to obscure the only window serving bedroom one.

The proposal therefore would cause harm to the living conditions of residents at number [address] through its over bearing impact and the potential for direct overlooking caused by the relocation of the window serving bedroom one. As such I consider that the proposal before me would be contrary to Policy 72 of the St Albans District Local Plan Review 1994 and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

For the reasons above, taking into account all other matters raised, I dismiss the appeal.