Appeal 6004302

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form states that the development was started in January 2024. At the time of my site visit, some construction had taken place, albeit the structure was not complete. Whilst the development is partially implemented, my assessment is based on the plans before me.

The appellant has submitted revised plans as part of the appeal process, amending the height of the walls shown on the pre-existing elevations and removing the window from the side elevation of the proposed extension. Section 16 of the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England (2026) advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at the application stage. The proposed removal of a window would represent a minor change to the appeal proposal, and I am satisfied that, in this context, the scheme remains essentially the same as that considered by the Council. The amendments made to the pre-existing elevations do not alter the proposal scheme. On this basis, I have had regard to the revised plans in determining the appeal.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site is located at the junction of [address] and [address]. A commercial unit at ground-floor level fronts on to [address] with a residential dwelling known as [address] above, accessed via an external staircase from [address]. The appeal proposal relates to a void above the rear portion of the ground-floor unit, beyond the external staircase and connecting walkway. From the plans before me, it is evident that prior to the development commencing this void was surrounded by a wall of a height broadly comparable to that of the wall which borders the walkway adjacent to No 10 and the neighbouring residential properties.

The site is located within an area which is predominantly residential in character. I observed on site a broad uniformity to the surrounding built form and roofscape, with the majority of properties being 2-storeys in height with pitched roofs. The appeal proposal would depart from and contrast starkly with this uniformity with a central crown roof that is predominantly flat. The small mono-pitched elements at the front and rear of the proposed development would match the pitch of the neighbouring roof on [address]. However, the roof as a whole would appear incongruous due to its unusual form, and its height significantly less than that of the adjoining property. Similarly, even though the materials visible from [address] would appear sympathetic to those of neighbouring properties, the proposal would appear at odds with the prevailing pattern of development. This is irrespective of the window proposed on the [address] frontage, which would appear consistent with those of the neighbouring properties.

Consequently, notwithstanding that the proposal would not be visible from [address] due to intervening built form, it would represent an incongruous and unduly prominent addition to the street scene. While its height would be subservient to that of the adjacent buildings, this does not overcome the harm that would result from the form of the proposal. In this regard, the proposal is contrary to the guidance provided within section 8.6.1 of the Council’s Residential Design Guide (2016) (the RDG) which identifies the need for side extensions to be carefully designed and for scale to be carefully considered due to their prominence within street scenes.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. As such, it is contrary to the relevant provisions of Policies QD6.2 and QD6.4 of the Watford Local Plan 2021-2038 (adopted 2022) (the Local Plan). Among other things, these policies seek development which makes a positive contribution to high quality design and place-making, including by taking design cues from existing buildings and having a scale and massing relating to the local context.

The appeal proposal would be located close to a window serving No 10. It would extend to a height greater than that of the existing wall bordering the walkway serving No 10 and neighbouring properties. Even though the height change would be relatively small, as a result of its height in proximity to the window, the proposal would impinge upon the outlook from No 10. In particular, it would erode the openness of the outlook, consequently increasing the sense of enclosure experienced by the occupiers of No 10.

The appellant has put to me that the window does not serve a habitable room. However, there is no substantive evidence before to demonstrate this. In the absence of this, I am not satisfied that the proposal would not be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 10. As such, the proposal would be contrary to the guidance in section 8.4.1 of the Council’s RDG which specifies that an extension must not adversely affect the level of amenity enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring properties, including by increasing the sense of enclosure experienced within a habitable room.

While the appellant’s “Daylight assessment for proposed development at [address]” demonstrates that the development would result in a loss of daylight entering the window at No 10, the loss is identified to be only marginally greater than the Building Research Establishment guideline of 0.8. Moreover, the assessment identifies that there would be no change to the areas able to receive direct skylight within the kitchen and that loss of sunlight would not be an issue due to orientation of neighbouring development. From the information before me and my observations on site, I see no reason to disagree with these findings. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the levels of daylight or sunlight entering No 10.

Nevertheless, I conclude that, overall, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 10, with particular regard to outlook. As such, alongside the identified conflict with the Council’s RDG, the proposal is contrary to the aims of paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework in that it would not promote a high standard of amenity.

The Council’s Officer Report refers to Policies QD6.1, QD6.2 and QD6.4 of the Local Plan in relation to living conditions. However, these policies relate to matters including character and design, and are not determinative to this main issue.

The proposed storage area would enable the ground floor shop to expand whilst also providing improved facilities for staff. Nonetheless, these benefits are limited by the scope and scale of the development, and do not outweigh the harms that I have found.

I appreciate the frustrations of the appellant regarding the Council’s approach to the application, including its lack of a site visit. However, this does not have a bearing on my consideration of the appeal, which I have determined on its own merits. The absence of objections from neighbours is also a neutral factor in my consideration of the appeal.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.