Appeal 6003745

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part single and two storey rear and side extensions with roof lights, new openings and raised rear patio and internal alterations at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 5/25/1898, 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 796 PL_02 [name] and Elevations with Site Layout and 796 PL_03 [name] and Proposed Block Plan.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the new windows in the side elevations have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of [address], with particular regard to daylight, outlook and privacy.

The appeal property comprises a two-storey dwelling which, consistent with the prevailing pattern of development in the surrounding residential area, is sited on a reasonably large plot with a substantial garden to the rear. The property extends across the majority of the width of the site, albeit with the built form adjacent to the boundary with No 11 only a single storey in height. Built form at No 11 extends across the majority of that plot, with windows serving habitable rooms located close to the shared boundary. The topography of the surrounding area is gently undulating with the appeal property set on slightly higher ground than No 11. The substantial gardens at each of the properties result in a verdant outlook.

The appeal proposal would result in additional two-storey built development close to the boundary with No 11. This built form would, based on the Council’s assessment, be located within 45 degrees, on plan and on elevation, of the ground floor window at No 11 which serves a study.

During my site visit, I observed that the existing single-storey built form on the appeal site and established vegetation at No [address] to the study window. It is reasonable to expect that the daylight entering the window is already limited due to this built form and vegetation. In this regard, although I acknowledge that the proposal would result in built form of a greater height close to the window, I do not consider that it would materially reduce the daylight entering the study compared to the existing circumstances. Ultimately, therefore, even if the recent planning permission at No 11 (reference 5/2025/0119), which the parties advise includes the removal of the study window, was not implemented the appeal proposal would not result in a harmful effect on the daylight entering No 11.

The proposal would increase the extent of built form visible from the rear garden of No 11, with the level difference between the properties emphasising this. Notwithstanding this, built form would extend no deeper into the appeal site than is currently the case. Moreover, while the extension would be visible from parts of the rear garden of No 11, it would be partially screened from the majority of the patio area by the built form at No 11. Consequently, the existing verdant outlook from No 11 would remain largely intact and the proposal would not appear overbearing from the rear garden of No 11.

While windows are proposed at first floor level on the side elevation, they are sited such that there would be limited visibility of them from the majority of the garden at No 11 due to the existing built form at No 11. Accordingly, they are unlikely to appear overly dominant or intrusive. The imposition of a condition requiring the windows to be fitted with obscured glazing and non-opening below 1.7m would ensure that appropriate levels of privacy for occupiers of the appeal property and No 11 would be maintained.

The Council does not object to the proposed raising of the patio. From the evidence before me and my observations on site, I have no reason to disagree with that finding.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 11, with particular regard to daylight, outlook and privacy. As such, the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of Policy 72 of the City and District of St Albans District Local Plan Review (adopted 1994). In summary, this policy seeks that the light, privacy or amenity of adjoining properties shall not be unacceptably harmed by development.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions against the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Where necessary, I have amended the wording of conditions for clarity, and to ensure compliance with the tests of both precision and enforceability.

In addition to requiring commencement within the relevant statutory period, I have imposed a condition requiring adherence to the approved plans. These conditions are imposed for certainty.

A condition relating to materials is necessary in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area.

A condition requiring windows on the side elevations to be fitted with obscured glazing and non-opening below 1.7m is necessary in the interests of safeguarding the living conditions of occupiers of the appeal property and adjoining properties.

For the reasons given above, the proposal complies with the development plan and there are no material considerations which indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.