First-floor side extension over existing garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 June 2026 by L Clark MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008761 14 Tilehouse Close, Borehamwood, Hertfordshire WD6 4AS • 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 Collyer against the decision of Hertsmere Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/1833/HSE. • The development proposed is a first-floor side extension over existing garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of the occupants of Number 62 Theobald Street (No.62) with particular regard to light and outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling that is situated to the rear of properties on Theobald Street. The wall of the appeal property forms the boundary between the appeal site and the rear garden of No.62. There are also trees and fencing on the border. The garden of No.62 is of a modest depth and appears to be set at a lower level than the appeal site. 5. The proposal would add a first floor above the existing single storey aspect that is positioned immediately alongside the boundary at the foot of the rear garden of No.62. The extended part would therefore spread across a substantial section of their rear boundary. There are some gaps in the trees that provide some visual alleviation and light for users of the rear garden of No.62. This would be unacceptably eroded as a result of the proposal which would erect a tall block along the boundary, filling the spaces that allowed natural light to permeate. 6. The somewhat looming effect of the height, proximity and run of the extension would appear overbearing to users of the rear garden of No.62 and would garner a strong sense of enclosure, detrimentally affecting the outlook therefrom. The erection of a second storey would therefore considerably worsen an arrangement Appeal Decision 6008761 2 that is already intimate. This and the above factors would be exacerbated by the lower ground level and overall depth of No.62’s plot. 7. The proposal would thus harm the living conditions of the occupants of No.62 and would conflict with Policy SADM30 of the Hertsmere Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 which is concerned with neighbouring amenity amongst other things. Other Matters 8. The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area is not a contentious matter in the appeal. Similarly, a lack of objection from neighbouring occupiers does not absolve me from making an assessment as to the appeal scheme’s impact in regard to the main issue. The absence of any views made or matter which would be acceptable in the scheme would be a lack of harm and thus neutral in any balance of considerations. Policy CS22 of the Hertsmere Local Plan Development Plan Document Core Strategy 2013 appears to be more related to character and accessibility rather than the main issue. 9. The scheme may improve the living conditions for the appellant, but this would be a private benefit. It is unclear as to whether the appeal scheme is the sole means of achieving said aims. This would not therefore change my findings above. I do not have the specific planning history of the examples provided and I am therefore unable to compare their effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers against the appeal scheme. In light of this, the examples do not convince me to recommend that the appeal should be allowed. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. L Clark APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR