Appeal 3362766

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The development has already been carried out. Therefore, I have considered the proposal on the basis that planning permission is sought retrospectively.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers of [address] (No 83) with particular regard to outlook.

[site address] is a two storey, semi-detached dwelling. It is attached to No 83. To the rear, the two properties gardens are separated from one another by a closed timber board fence. No 83 has a clear glazed ground floor window to its rear elevation and a patio area, both of which are situated alongside the shared boundary.

The height of the rear extension’s side elevation along the boundary with No 83 is accentuated by the parapet. In combination with its elongated projection, this forms a high wall of considerable mass. Consequently, from the nearest ground floor window and the patio area at No 83, the development has an overbearing and unduly enclosing effect, contrary to the Council’s Borough-Wide Supplementary Planning Guidance (updated 2013) (SPG).

In addition, the extension clearly contravenes the SPG’s 60 degree guideline when taken from the mid-point of the nearest ground floor main window at No 83. This is not justified by the development’s single storey scale as the 60 degree guideline specifically relates to single storey extensions. I acknowledge that the SPG does not place a presumption against proposals for extensions which exceed four metres regardless of context. However, the mass of the extension and site specific relationship with No 83 in this instance does not indicate a situation where a relaxation of the 60 degree guideline should be applied.

Whilst occupiers of No 83 would maintain views down their own rear garden, the garden is somewhat narrow. Therefore, this does not mitigate the dominance of the extension within the more immediate aspect of the nearest window and patio area at No 83. Furthermore, the top of the boundary fence on the shared boundary sits some way below the top of the side elevation of the development and does not negate its effects.

I conclude, the development has a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No. 83 with particular regard to outlook. In that regard, it conflicts with Policy EQ1 of The Broxbourne Local Plan (2020) (LP) which requires that development avoids impacts on the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring properties including in terms of outlook.

The Council’s decision also refers to Policy DSC1 of the LP. However, this policy principally relates to design and not to living conditions. [name] have not identified specific conflict with this policy, this does not overcome the conflict with Policy EQ1.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.