Appeal 6003184

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for front, side and rear extensions, conversion of roof to habitable space, new front and rear dormer windows and fenestration alterations at [site address] , Elstree, Borehamwood [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref 25/1514/HSE, and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I have taken the description of development as set out above from the application form as neither party has provided written confirmation that a revised description has been agreed and I am satisfied the description listed in the application form adequately describes the proposed development.

The appeal arises from a disagreement between the parties as to whether the development amounts to a householder planning application and therefore whether a valid application was made. Should it be determined that the application is a valid householder application, I have identified other main issues in this appeal with regard to the evidence before me, including the development plan policies provided by the Council and comments from interested parties.

Accordingly, the main issues are:  whether or not the application is a valid householder application; and in the event that the appeal is a valid householder application;  the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 67 (No

and 71 (No 71) [address], with specific regard to privacy, daylight and sunlight.

The Development Management Procedure Order (2015) (DMPO) defines a householder application in article 2 as: ‘(a) an application for planning permission for development for an existing dwellinghouse, or development within the curtilage of such a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse, or (b) an application for any consent, agreement or approval required by or under a planning permission, development order or local development order in relation to such development, but does not include an application for change of use or an application to change the number of dwellings in a building’.

The parties disagree whether as a result of the proposed demolition, the dwelling could still be considered to be ‘existing’ in the context of article 2. The parties do agree however that whether the dwelling would continue to exist is a matter of judgement based on the specific circumstances of each case.

The proposed demolition plan shows that a two-storey element comprising the garage, bedroom and study would be removed along with some of the front and rear walls at ground and first floor. A two-storey external side wall would be retained, as would parts of the front and rear walls. The evidence also indicates that the roof would be replaced. Internal walls at ground floor level would be mostly retained, whilst some would be removed at first floor level.

Whilst the dwelling may become uninhabitable during the works and a notable amount of demolition would take place, given a number of internal and external walls would be kept through the proposal the dwelling would retain its general form and appearance as a dwellinghouse. As such, on the balance of probabilities, sufficient elements of the existing dwelling would be retained whereby the building would remain to be readily distinguishable as a dwelling and it would not be demolished to such an extent where it would cease to exist.

Therefore, the proposal would amount to an application for planning permission for development of an existing dwellinghouse, which falls within the scope of a householder planning application. It therefore follows that the required information listed on the Council’s decision notice relating to CIL forms, biodiversity net gain and an increased application fee required for a full application, is not necessary for the development. The application was therefore validly made as a householder application.

Presently, the closest adjacent neighbours of Nos 67 and 71 are set in a broadly linear rear building line, with the appeal property set slightly ahead. The proposed extension would cause the appeal property to subsequently exceed this rear building line with the adjacent neighbours.

[name] 67 and 71 have rear facing windows at ground and first floor level that serve habitable rooms. They also have primary external amenity space situated just outside these respective rear elevations.

The appeal proposal would project past the neighbouring rear building lines and whilst two storey in stature, would only be at a modest depth. In addition, the proposed extensions would also retain an offset from both side boundaries with these neighbours. On this basis, I am satisfied that the evidence adequately shows that a considerable amount of daylight and sunlight would still reach these rear facing windows and the rear amenity space unimpeded by the appeal proposal. As such, the extensions would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 67 and No [address] of loss of daylight and sunlight.

In relation to privacy, the existing dwelling already has first floor rear facing outlook with oblique views towards the garden areas and patios of neighbouring properties. This is a common feature in the pattern of development within [address]. The proposed extended dwelling would also have such outlook, and given that this would continue to provide oblique views towards the neighbours it would be no different than the existing situation and would be in keeping with the wider pattern of development and common relationship between properties. A condition would be imposed relating to side windows to ensure no overlooking would occur from these windows. As such, no overlooking or perception of overlooking causing a loss of privacy to the occupiers of Nos 67 and 71 would occur as a result of the appeal proposal.

The proposal would therefore not result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 67 and No 71. It would comply with Policy SP1 of the [name] (2013) and Policy SADM30 of the Hertsmere Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016). These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development has limited impact on the amenity of neighbours in terms of privacy and light and ensures that development creates a safe and healthy living environment for residents.

No other considerations have been presented to me, or that I have identified based on my observations on site and within the evidence before me that would indicate that the proposal would not be acceptable.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the PPG. The standard timescale condition for implementation and a plans compliance condition are imposed for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.

A condition requiring materials to match the existing is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

Ensuring the proposed side facing windows towards Nos 67 and 71 are obscurely glazed is necessary in the interests of protecting the privacy of these occupiers.

A condition ensuring that runoff from hard surfaces is to a permeable or porous area is reasonable and necessary in the interests of ensuring that the proposal does not result in excess runoff offsite.

In addition, I have had consideration to the comments made during the planning application from Place Services1 in relation to the trees and vegetation at the site, including the group TPO covering the trees to the rear of the site. Given the contribution the trees make to the character and appearance of the area, it is necessary to ensure that the tree protection measures as set out in the submitted Arboricultural Constraints Assessment are installed. This is required to be prior to commencement in order to ensure the effective protection of the TPO trees from all elements of the building works.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

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:  306-PLK-01 C - Existing elevations and site layout  306-PLK-02 A - Existing floor layouts, sections and roof plan  306-PLK-03 F - Proposed floor layouts and street scene  306-PLK-04 E - Proposed elevations and street scene  306-PLK-05 F - Proposed roof, site and sections  306-PLK-06 B - Demolition plan  Location plan dated 21 October 2025

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The tree protection measures as set out in [name] of the Arboricultural Constraints Assessment by Evertree (16/10/2025) shall be undertaken at the site before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Within the fence or other means of enclosure surrounding the trees, nothing shall be stored or placed or any activities associated with building operations shall take place and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made.

The windows and rooflights to be created in the first floor and second floor side elevations as shown on the plan 306-PLK-[address] scene shall be in fully obscure glass (to [name] 3 or equivalent) and non-opening below a height of 1.7 metres measured from the internal finished floor level.

The hard surfacing to the front garden hereby permitted shall be made of porous materials, or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, and shall be retained in this form in perpetuity. -- End of Schedule --