Appeal 3297019

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal property is located within the Berkhamsted Conservation Area. The Council is satisfied that the proposal would not result in harm to heritage assets and the main issue is as set out below.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook.

The appeal property is a two storey end of terrace dwelling located within a residential area at the end of [address]. Whilst set close to the road at the front, the appeal property has a relatively long rear garden which runs alongside [address] to the south.

As noted above, the appeal property is located within the Berkhamsted Conservation Area which in this location is notable for the presence of traditional terraced dwellings with gardens to the rear and an array of attractive period features, including bay windows, decorative brickwork and original fenestration.

[address] slopes down from south to north and consequently, the appeal property sits higher than its adjoining neighbour, Number [address]. During my site visit, I observed that No 15 has a modest single storey extension to its rear outrigger and I also noted the presence of small outbuildings located within the gardens to the rear of the appeal property and its neighbours.

The proposed rear extension would project beyond No 15’s ground floor rear extension. I find that this factor, when combined with the overall height of the proposed extension, would result in the proposal appearing to loom above the rear of No 15 to an overbearing degree. The harm arising from this would be exacerbated as a result of the change in levels between the two dwellings, such that the height of the proposal would be exaggerated when seen from No 15 and leading it to appear as an unduly dominant feature when seen from this neighbouring property.

Further to the above, No 16 is located to the south of No 15 and I consider that a combination of the overall height, scale and location of the proposal would result in a loss of daylight and sunlight to the rear of No 15 and this is a factor that adds to the level of harm identified.

[name] note above that the gardens to the rear of [address] in this location are characterised in part by the presence of outbuildings, these tend to be small and as such, appear in keeping with their domestic garden setting. 10.The proposed outbuilding to the rear of No 15’s garden would comprise a tall, wide and long structure. Its overall dimensions, when added to the change in levels between No 15’s rear garden and that of No 16, would result in the presence of an unduly dominant structure that would appear to loom over No 15’s rear garden to an overbearing degree. 11.[name] observed there to be a tall wall at the end of No 16’s rear garden, the front of the proposed outbuilding would be located much closer than this to No 15’s rear windows and outside sitting areas; and it would also run alongside and appear above a considerable length of No 15’s rear garden and these factors would add to the visually intrusive appearance of the proposal. 12.Taking all of this into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Core Strategy1 Policy CS12, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.