Appeal 6005557

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing and construction of two semi-detached dwellings at [site address] , Harpenden, Hertfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 5/25/1522 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] (No 6) with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling, single garage, shed and the associated garden. The site is irregular in shape and exhibits a noticeable change in levels, rising from the street frontage towards the rear. It is located within an established residential area.

The proposal is for two semi-detached dwellings arranged over three storeys. To the rear, No 6 shares its side boundary with the site. The proposed dwellings would be angled to the boundary, with House ‘A’ positioned closer to the rear of the dwelling at No 6, while House ‘B’ would be set further from the dwelling but closer to No 6’s rear garden. House ‘A’ would lie between 9.9 metres (m) and 12.5m from the shared boundary, while House ‘B’ would be between 7.1m and 9.3m from it. While a degree of overlooking would arise from the rear-facing windows of House ‘A’, the Council raised no objection to it. From the evidence before me and my observations on site, I have no reason to disagree with that

Policy 70 of the [site address] District Local Plan Review 1994 (LP) seeks a tolerable level of visual privacy is provided in habitable rooms and to a lesser extent private gardens. It requires that a distance of 13.5m between a dwelling and rear boundary should normally be attained however part (vii) of the policy provides that there may be alternative methods of achieving privacy.

The [site address] City and District Council draft Local Plan (draft LP) is at an advanced stage in the Examination process, with the consultation on [name] recently undertaken. The Council refers to Policy DES5 of the draft LP which states that privacy should be provided for habitable rooms of dwellings, and to a lesser extent for private residential gardens and other private amenity areas. The policy acknowledges that impacts will be less severe where affected rooms or private amenity spaces are already overlooked to some degree, or where there is effective mitigation. The supporting text refers to a minimum separation distance of 11m between new upper floor rear windows and the rear boundary unless divergence from this is justified by the particular nature of a site and its surroundings. As the policy is subject to [name], I attached moderate weight to it.

The rear elevation of House ‘B’ would incorporate several openings. Two windows are proposed at first floor level, serving a bathroom and a bedroom, with a rooflight serving a bedroom and a window serving a bathroom at second floor level. The orientation of House ‘B’ would ensure that views from the upper floor windows are directed toward the far end of the rear garden of No 6, rather than directly overlooking its habitable room windows. Moreover, the difference in ground levels between the appeal site and No 6, with the appeal site occupying a lower position, would further reduce the potential for overlooking towards No 6.

There is no evidence to suggest the existing hedge on the rear boundary would be removed as part of the development. It would provide a visual screen and sense of enclosure to the rear garden of No 6, assisting in mitigating any perceived overlooking.

To minimise the potential for overlooking, a planning condition can ably be imposed requiring the openings in the second floor rear elevation of both dwellings and the first floor bathroom window of House ‘B’ to be fitted with obscured glazing and to be non-opening below 1.7m above floor level. The remaining bedroom window, which would not be obscurely glazed, would afford some views towards the rear part of the garden of No 6. However, for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied the overlooking would not be materially harmful.

In conclusion, the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 6, with particular regard to privacy, would be acceptable. It does not conflict with Policies 69 and 70 of the LP insofar as they relate to privacy. The proposed development does not conflict with emerging Policy DES5 of the draft LP insofar as it seeks to maintain privacy, nor would it conflict with paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as it relates to developments providing a high standard of amenity for existing users.

Interested parties have raised concerns regarding highway safety impacts resulting from vehicle parking, additional traffic and the creation of a new driveway. No objection was raised by the Council on highway safety grounds. I have no compelling reason to reach a different view to the Council regarding these aspects of the development, based on the likely low level of traffic generation and the parking proposed.

Noise impacts and disturbance during construction would be limited due to the scale and nature of the development. A condition restricting noise during the construction period has not been suggested by the Council and I do not find such a condition to be necessary.

Interested parties have raised overlooking and loss of privacy concerns to properties other than No 6. While the proposed dwellings would be higher and contain more openings than the existing dwelling, the separation distances together with the intervening public highway, would ensure that any overlooking towards properties opposite the site would not be harmful. No windows are proposed within the side elevations and, having regard to the relationships with adjacent properties, I find that there would be no material overlooking in these directions. Furthermore, due to the siting of the proposed development, the Council concluded that there would be no harmful loss of light to 47 (No 47) or 53 (No 53) [address]. Having considered the evidence before me, I find no compelling reason to depart from the Council’s conclusion on this matter due to the orientation and siting in relation to No 47 and the distance from No 53.

The site adjoins the access serving the allotments located to the rear of properties to the east of the site on [address]. The proposed development would not impede the access and, due to its distance from the allotments themselves, would not harm their use or function.

The Council considered the height of the proposed development to be acceptable and to be in keeping with the surrounding streetscene. I have no compelling reason to reach a different view regarding this aspect of the development as it would fit in adequately with its surroundings.

Concerns regarding the untidy condition of the site have been raised however this is a matter that is covered by other legislative powers.

The Framework, in paragraph 57, indicates that conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

The standard commencement condition and the plans condition are imposed to provide certainty. For the avoidance of doubt, I have made amendments to the drawing titles in the Council’s suggested plans condition, to accurately reflect the titles on the plans and have added drawing SK01 which is specifically referred to in condition 10.

A Construction Method Statement is necessary to ensure all aspects of the demolition and construction adhere to best practice and do not adversely affect highway safety. It is necessary as a pre-commencement condition to minimise the impacts at this particular site and in the surrounding area throughout the demolition and construction process. The appellant has agreed to this condition. I have amended the condition to ensure it is necessary and reasonable for the scale of the development permitted, and so it is precise.

Due to the sloping nature of the site, details of the levels are necessary for the avoidance of doubt in relation to protect both the living conditions of neighbours at No 6 and the character and appearance of the site. I have amended the condition to reference ordnance datum to provide certainty.

A condition relating to materials is necessary to mitigate adverse impacts on character and appearance. I have amended the requirement to require details, and not samples, to be submitted, which is reasonable given the site’s context and the scale of the development.

Details of hard and soft landscaping of the front gardens is necessary to ensure the development will be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area. I have amended the timing clause to allow for demolition and included an implementation clause to provide certainty.

The Council’s suggested condition requires compliance with the three recommendations in the submitted [name]. I am satisfied that compliance with the recommendations is necessary to avoid harm to [name] (bats) and to ensure the site remains favourable for foraging and commuting bats. However, I have dealt with the recommendations in separate conditions as they have different timing requirements and the level of detail required differs.

Details of bat boxes are required to ensure compliance with the [name] and an implementation condition ensures the mitigation will be undertaken. Details of external lighting have timing and implementation clauses specific to the lighting installation and provides that if no external lighting is installed the condition is not triggered. The protection of the hedge, and details of such, is necessary to mitigate the impacts on the hedge during the construction period and secure its retention. A pre-commencement condition would be necessary as the protection measures would need to be in place when development commences, including site clearance which may include the removal of vegetation. The appellant has agreed to this condition.

I have amended the boundary fence condition to ensure that it is clear and precise. The fence is necessary to provide an acceptable level of privacy between the occupiers of the new dwellings.

A condition requiring windows to be obscure glazed is necessary to ensure overlooking to No 6 is minimised. I have included a timing clause and amended the condition to ensure preciseness. I have removed the tailpiece wording as this could potentially allow changes to be made to the development without proper scrutiny, and therefore it is not reasonable.

The Council has suggested a condition requiring the vehicular access for House ‘A’ to be completed in accordance with a submitted drawing but also in accordance with further details/specifications to be submitted. The reason provided is not clear as to why further details are necessary. I find that both proposed accesses are required to be provided prior to occupation of the dwellings and that surface water should not be discharged onto the highway. However, I consider the submission of further details would be unnecessary and unreasonable as the specifications would be covered under an agreement(s) with the local highway authority under the Highways Act. I have amended the condition accordingly.

The Council has suggested a condition that would remove specific Permitted Development (PD) rights within Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. Paragraph 55 of the Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national PD rights unless there is clear justification to do so. The Council has not provided clear justification for the removal of PD rights. Notwithstanding this, I have acknowledged that the development would result in a degree of overlooking which could be increased if the dwelling, including the roof, was to be extended or altered. Consequently, it is necessary to remove some PD rights. However, it would not be justified or necessary to remove PD rights for outbuildings. I have therefore amended the suggested condition to exclude reference to Class E.

The Council has suggested a condition requiring the submission of a Biodiversity Net Gain Plan, however this is not necessary as it duplicates the requirements of the statutory condition imposed through planning legislation.

The proposal would be in accordance with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • Location Plan dated 13 August 2025, scale 1:1250 @A4 • Section through main body of proposed houses, scale 1:50 @A3 • Roof plan, scale 1:50 @A3 • Loft floor plan, scale 1:50 @A3 • 1st floor plan, scale 1:50 @A3 • Grd floor plan, scale 1:50 @A3 • Rear elevation, scale 1:50 @A3 • Right hand elevation, scale 1:50 @A3 • Left hand elevation, scale 1:50 @A3 • Front elevation, scale 1:50 @A3 • Boundary fence details, scale 1:50 @A4 • Proposed block plan, scale 1:100 @A3 • SK01 proposed vehicular crossover arrangement, scale 1:100 @A3

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved statement shall thereafter be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

No development shall take place, including any site clearance or works of demolition, until a scheme for the protection of the hedge on the rear (northern) boundary of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme for the protection of the hedge shall be carried out as approved. The hedge shall be retained thereafter.

No development above ground level, other than any works of demolition, shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development above ground level, other than any works of demolition, shall take place until details of the hard and soft landscape works for the front gardens have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details provided shall include the following: - proposed boundary treatments; - hard surfacing materials; and - soft landscaping including planting. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the development is first occupied. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from occupation of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

No development above ground level, other than any works of demolition, shall take place until details of two integrated bat boxes (one per dwelling) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The bat boxes shall be installed in accordance with the approved details before the development is first occupied and shall be retained thereafter.

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a 1.[address] board fence shall be erected on the boundary separating the rear gardens of the permitted dwellings. The fence shall extend the length of the boundary, from the rear elevation of the building to the rear boundary.

The openings in the second floor rear elevation of both dwellings and the bathroom window on the rear elevation at first floor level of House ‘B’ shall be fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of the windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The windows shall be installed prior to occupation in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained thereafter.

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the vehicular accesses for both dwellings shall be provided, as shown on drawing number SK01, and retained thereafter. The construction of the accesses shall include measures to ensure surface water from the site is not discharged on to the public highway.

Prior to the installation of any external lighting full details of a lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the height, design, location and intensity of proposed lighting. The lighting installation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name], B or C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken. End of schedule