Appeal 3304152

The appeal is dismissed.

The decision notice refers to policies set out in the emerging plan. Since the decision was issued by the Council, the North Hertfordshire Local Plan 2011- 2031 (LP) has been adopted and therefore the North Hertfordshire District Local Plan No 2 with [name] 1996 (saved policies under the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 [name] 2007) no longer form part of the development plan. I have therefore not had regard to policies 28 and 57 of the superseded plan in reaching my decision and have taken account of the policies set out in the LP adopted on 8 November 2022.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the living conditions of the occupiers of 6 [name] with regard to outlook; and • the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed first floor extension would be situated so that it would not have a significant effect on the outlooks from the rear windows of No 6. However, the addition of the first floor, due to its height, depth and siting so close to the boundary would add to what is already a significant amount of built form, viewed from the rear garden area of No 6. The cumulative effect would result in a dominant and oppressive feature that would have an overbearing effect upon the outlook from the rear garden area of No 6.

I therefore find that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 6 with regard to outlook. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SP1, SP9, D1 and D3 of the LP, which seek amongst other things, to create high quality developments that respond positively to local context and do not cause unacceptable harm to living conditions. The proposal would also be contrary to the relevant paragraph of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The general form, design and proportions of the proposed extension would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. However, the proposal includes the provision of an apex style window in the front elevation which is not in keeping with the design of the existing windows.

I note the appellant has confirmed that the design of this window did not form a reason for refusal in the previously refused scheme and that the Council have only raised it in the reason for refusal for the scheme subject to this appeal. The appellant has confirmed they did not have the opportunity to amend this element of the scheme due to this. However, as it is included as part of the reason for refusal, I must consider it as part of this appeal.

The proposed apex window in the front elevation would be at odds with the character and appearance of the existing windows situated in the appeal dwelling and it would be prominent given its position in the front elevation, sited further forward than the existing dwelling at first floor level. In addition, the apex window feature would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of other fenestration detailing in the surrounding dwellings along [name], which all have rectangular windows of relatively regular proportions.

I therefore find that the proposed apex window would represent a dominant feature in the street scene which would not be in keeping with the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the area and is contrary to policies SP1, SP9 and D1 of the LP, which seek amongst other things, to create high quality developments that respond positively to local context. The proposal would also be contrary to the relevant paragraph of the Framework which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character.

I note that this scheme was an amended resubmission of a previously refused scheme and that the appellant sought to resolve the issues raised in the previous reason for refusal. Be that as it may, I must deal with the proposal before me on its own merits.

Due to the orientation of the proposed extension in relation to No 6, there would not be a detrimental impact on the levels of either sunlight or daylight reaching the garden area of No 6, as a result of the proposal. However, the lack of harm in this regard does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, which outweigh the harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed.