Side and rear single and two storey extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 March 2026 by G Sylvester BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002981 11 New Street, Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire CM21 9BA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by M Kingston Pack against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. • The application Ref is 3/25/1126/HH. • The development proposed is side and rear single and two storey extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The compass points described in the written evidence before me appear to be correct whereas those shown on the drawings do not. I have therefore proceeded to determine the appeal based on those in the written evidence. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this appeal are the effects of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of Numbers 1, 7 and 13 New Street, with particular regard to their outlook and access to natural light. Reasons 4. Policy DES4 of the East Herts District Plan 2018 (“the EHDP”) expects all development, including extensions to existing buildings, to be of a high standard of design and to avoid significant detrimental impacts on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. 5. In its refusal reason, the Council refers to the effects of the proposed development on natural light reaching several rooms within Numbers 1, 7 and 13 New Street. As no technical study has been undertaken to model those potential effects, I have reached my own judgements based on the evidence before me and my observations at my visit. Number 7 6. Number 7 is set further back from New Road than the appeal building and on lower ground where its front wall faces the appeal site. Given the relationship between them, the effects of the proposed development, in terms of outlook and access to light, would be expected to be greatest from the rooms in Number 7 that are served by the modestly sized ground and first floor windows that are Appeal Decision 6002981 2 positioned closest to its end gable. I have focussed my assessment on those windows which are clear glazed and likely to serve habitable rooms. 7. The existing outlook from that ground floor window in Number 7 would be towards the appeal site and above the tall brick wall that separates them. In those views, the built form of the appeal building, including the single storey office/garage which stands more or less directly in front of Number 7, has an imposing presence, particularly as it stands on elevated ground and rises well above that brick wall. The outlook from the first floor window of Number 7 would be from an elevated level and therefore just above and across the single storey office/garage of the appeal building. 8. Currently, the two-storey core of the appeal building does not sit directly between the front wall of Number 7 and the road. However, this would change with the introduction of the part two-storey side extension, which would occupy the space above the existing single-storey office/garage where no built form currently exists. Positioned on elevated ground directly in front of those front windows of Number 7, the height and massing of the proposed extension would result in the appeal building, in its proposed extended form, having an overbearing effect in those relatively short distance views from the rooms served by those windows. 9. In addition, the proposed rear extension would bring the two-storey core of the appeal building closer to Number 7. Although it would be offset from the front windows of Number 7, it would be clearly visible in views from those windows given its size, their close relationship and the differences in land levels. The combined massing of those sizeable two-storey extensions and their close relationship with Number 7, would give the appeal building, in its proposed extended form, a dominating presence and an oppressively overbearing impact in views from out of those front windows in Number 7. 10. I have taken account of the path of the sun as it moves through the sky during the day, including its position at a lower angle in the sky during the afternoon and into the early evening. Given its close relationship with Number 7, I am satisfied that the built form of the appeal dwelling, as it is proposed to be extended with those sizeable additions to the rear and side, would be expected to restrict sunlight reaching those windows in the front wall of Number 7, causing an overshadowing effect within the rooms they serve. No technical evidence has been advanced to the contrary. In my judgement, the effect would be relatively prolonged and together with the overbearing effect described above would have a significant detrimental effect on the living conditions of the occupants of Number 7. 11. For those reasons the proposed development would result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupants of Number 7, contrary to EHDP Policy DES4, insofar as it expects significant detrimental impacts on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties to be avoided. Number 1 12. The north facing side elevation of the appeal property is currently directly in front of the ground floor conservatory in the principal elevation of Number 1, including the clear glazed first floor window above it, and another first floor window to its east. The baseline outlook from the conservatory and the rooms served by those windows would be more or less towards the side elevation of the appeal building, Appeal Decision 6002981 3 and across the garden that separates them. There is little difference in the levels of the land on which they are built. 13. The proposed side extension would bring the north facing side elevation of the appeal building closer to the front of Number 1, especially at first floor level and above. This would reduce the separation distance between the two properties and would be apparent in views from the first floor windows and the ground-floor conservatory at Number 1. However, compared to the baseline views from those windows, I am satisfied that the gap would remain of a sufficient size to ensure that the extension does not appear dominant or overbearing to the occupants of Number 1 when viewed from those rooms. 14. Furthermore, whilst the gap between them is shortest at ground floor level, the large areas of glazing would continue to provide occupants with relatively wide angled views from out of the conservatory, including across the garden of the appeal site and towards the road. Sufficient natural light would continue to reach those windows and the conservatory through the retained gap between those buildings, particularly given the angle of the sun as it moves through the sky. 15. For those reasons the proposed development would not result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupants of Number 1, and there would be no conflict with EHDP Policy DES4. Number 13 16. The proposed rear extension would be visible at close distances in views looking out of the ground floor windows in the large kitchen/diner to Number 13 that face the appeal site, and from the rear facing glazed door serving the playroom. The evidence suggests those rooms form part of an internally connected open plan style space served by wide glazed bifold doors. Those doors provide the principal outlook to the garden and access to light to those internal spaces, which are supplemented by existing south facing windows that would face the sun for a large part of the day. 17. The side windows and door in Number 13 that are in close proximity to the tall boundary fence with the appeal site are therefore much less important in terms of access to light and outlook from those internal spaces. That being the case the considerable built form of the proposed rear extension would not have a significant overbearing effect on the occupants’ outlook from the rooms served by those windows and the door. Furthermore, given that the extension would be positioned more or less to the north of those windows and the door, any effects arising from a decrease in light reaching them and overshadowing would be limited and have little effect on the occupants’ living conditions. 18. The appeal dwelling, in its existing form, restricts light reaching the narrow first floor bedroom window in the north facing wall of Number 13. Any further restriction caused by the proposed rear extension to light reaching that room would have a negligible effect on the occupants’ living conditions, particularly as the bedroom is also served by a rooflight and front facing window. 19. For those reasons the proposed development would not result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupants of Number 13, and there would be no conflict with EHDP Policy DES4. Appeal Decision 6002981 4 Other Matters 20. Having assessed the proposal against the development plan, taking account of the material before me and my observations at my visit, the absence of objections from other parties does not alter my conclusions on the main issues. I have necessarily determined the appeal on the same drawings as the Council and therefore earlier proposals for a larger extension have no bearing on my consideration of the appeal. 21. Despite the annotations on the drawings, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that two storey extensions of a comparable scale to those in this appeal could be erected under permitted development rights. Permitted development rights therefore have limited relevance and weight to my considerations. Through this appeal it is not for me to make a formal determination on the lawfulness of any development and the appellant has the option to apply for one under Section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which has its own process. 22. Avoiding harm to the street scene would be a policy requirement of any comparable development and it does not weigh positively in favour of the appeal. Even if I were to agree that the proposed extensions would be subservient in appearance to the host dwelling when considered in isolation of its context, it would not alter my conclusions on the main issues above. 23. As the dwelling at Number 13, which has also been extended, is set further away from Number 7, it does not have comparable effects to the appeal scheme. There is nothing of substance to indicate that any historic planning approvals to extend Number 1, which are not before me, would have comparable effects to the appeal proposal. Conclusion 24. The appeal proposal would be consistent with some policies of the development plan. However, the significant harm to the living conditions of the occupants of Number 7 brings the development into conflict with EHDP Policy DES4 and the development plan as a whole. It would also conflict with Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as decisions should ensure that development creates places with a high standard of amenity for existing users. 25. I therefore conclude that the proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole. The material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal should be dismissed. G Sylvester INSPECTOR