Appeal 6001033

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 main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of the neighbouring property, 123 Dawley, having particular regard to privacy.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached house located in a cul-de-sac consisting of other properties of a similar age and style. It has a pitched roof, with the gable end facing the highway; this elevation is mostly blank save for a small high-level window on the ground floor. There is a small single-storey porch on the side elevation housing the main entrance, a two-storey rear extension and a single-storey extension spanning the depth of the opposite side. There is a large rear garden and a patio area to the side of the property, which sits close to the side entrance of the neighbouring property.

Dawley has a staggered building line, meaning that the appeal property is situated close to the highway and forward of both of its flanking neighbours which form part of semi-detached pairs. The houses are mostly set slightly back from the footpath with small front gardens, some of which have been altered to driveways. Whilst the spacing between the properties appears generous, the positioning of the main entrances to the side of the dwellings narrows this space at ground floor level through the presence of fencing and porches.

The Welwyn Hatfield District Plan Supplementary Design Guidance (2005) states that for all first-floor side extensions, a minimum distance of 1m between the extension and the adjoining flank boundary must be maintained, which this proposal would adhere to. However, it goes on to state that the reflection of the existing spacing within the street scene is important to prevent any terracing effect and to ensure that the proposal does not prejudice the ability of an adjacent occupier to extend without destroying any separation spaces.

Although set off the boundary, the proposed development would not abide by this guidance, as the spacing between the appeal property and its flanking neighbour would be significantly reduced at first floor level, bringing the properties markedly closer together than is characteristic in this area.

The staggered building line along Dawley contributes positively to the existing street scene. The proposed development would sit very prominently within this, and the narrowed gap at first floor level would noticeably and harmfully disrupt the established pattern of development. Furthermore, the proposed development, when completed, would prejudice the ability of the neighbouring property to extend without resulting in a harmful terracing effect, which local policy seeks to avoid.

[name] note that there is an existing single-storey side extension to the appeal property, this is mostly concealed by the boundary fence and thus has a limited visual effect on the street scene. The addition of another storey to this element would reduce the existing generous spacing between the houses at first floor level which currently contributes positively to the rhythm of development.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would thus fail to comply with Policy SP9 of the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council Local Plan 2016-2036 (2023) (local plan) which requires proposals to deliver a high-quality design which relates well to their surroundings and local distinctiveness.

The properties along Dawley have side entrances, and the staggered plots mean that these are often positioned close to its neighbour.

I observed on my site visit that the side window of no 123 appears to serve a habitable room, and there is no evidence to the contrary before me. There are two bedroom windows in the facing flank of No 125, therefore there is a degree of mutual overlooking present. The proposed development would include two new windows to replace those in the existing side elevation adjacent no 123.

[name] accept that these are replacing existing windows, the proposed development would site them significantly closer to the site boundary with no 123, and also to the extant side window of that dwelling. The reduction in this gap between the two properties would result in the windows being considerably closer together. This would thereby result in a significant decrease in privacy for both the current and future occupiers of the two properties, even compared with the existing situation.

Overall, therefore, the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 123 with regard to privacy. It therefore fails to comply with Policy SADM11 of the local plan which requires all development to ensure a reasonable degree of privacy to new and existing private living space.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a first-floor side extension at 103 Dawley. However, no 103 is a different style of property being set back from the highway on a corner. It is semi-detached and has a fundamentally different neighbouring relationship as the extended side is next to a garage block. Therefore, it does not result in the same harm as identified on the appeal site. Furthermore, I have not been provided any details on any planning permission which was sought nor the circumstances under which it may have been approved. The existence of that extension does not therefore justify the appeal proposal.

The proposal would provide additional space for the appellant and their family; however this is a private benefit to which I attach limited weight. The increased size of the dwelling may well contribute to local housing stock, but it has not been demonstrated that there is a need for larger dwellings in the area. Therefore, these matters do not justify the harm I have identified.

The appellant has suggested that the proposal would not have an effect on day/sunlight to the neighbouring properties, nor would it be overbearing. They have also confirmed that there would be no changes to the access. The absence of harm in other respects is a neutral matter and it does not overcome the harm that I have already identified.

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.