Appeal 6001149

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed single storey side/rear extension with roof lantern, part garage conversion into habitable space and internal alterations at [site address] , Hertfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00531/FULH, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos Location Plan dated 5 June 2025 and NA-25035-PL-01.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan no. NA-25035-PL-01.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook.

Policy QD6.2 of the Watford Local Plan (WLP) requires, amongst other matters for new development to make a positive contribution to high quality design and place-making. Policy QD6.4 of the WLP outlines a general support for well designed buildings which reflect the character of the area. Within the Council’s Residential Design Guide (2016), more detailed advice is provided in respect to the consideration of neighbouring living conditions, specifically discouraging development which would lead to an increase in the ‘sense of enclosure’ experienced within a habitable room or a garden.

The proposed extension would be close to the shared boundary with [address] (No 11) and extend along the majority of the length of the neighbouring garden, which is comparatively shorter in its extent than the garden of the appeal site.

The shared boundary is comprised of a fence with hedgerow along part of the boundary, towards the rear extent of the neighbouring garden. However, the boundary treatment would not entirely screen the proposal, and it would remain visible to the occupiers of No 11 from the rear windows and the garden area.

Nevertheless, the proposal would be single storey in height and would be offset slightly from the shared boundary. These factors, as well as the part mitigation from the presence of the boundary treatment, would reduce the visual prominence of the proposal to a degree that it would not amount to a harmful overbearing impact or sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No 11.

The Council has referred to the failure with the ’45-degree’ rule in relation to the nearest habitable ground floor window of No 11 but it does not appear that this is specifically referred to in adopted policy. In any case, the outlook from the nearest ground floor window at No 11 is likely to already be somewhat constrained by the presence of the existing single storey garage at the appeal property, which already extends beyond the neighbouring rear building line. In comparison to the existing garage, the appeal proposal would be set further away from the shared boundary and have a lower overall roof height.

Based on the above, I conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook. It would therefore comply with Policies QD6.2 and QD6.4 of the WLP.

In the interests of certainty and clarity, I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development as well as the approved plans. I have also attached a condition requiring the building to be constructed in materials matching the existing dwelling in order to maintain the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would comply with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.