Appeal 3271477

The appeal is dismissed.

Notwithstanding the description of the development set out in the banner heading above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details before me that the development comprises the erection of a dwelling, with a rear dormer. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis.

The Council's reason for refusal includes the effect of the proposed development on the outlook and living conditions of residents at [address]. However, having read the Council’s planning officer report and Statement of Case it is clear to me that its objection in respect of living conditions relates solely to the privacy of the residents of [address]. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis and omitted the reference to ‘outlook’ in the main issue(s) of this case which are detailed below.

An application for costs was made by 28 Developments Ltd against Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of the residents of [address], in respect of privacy.

The appeal relates to a roughly square shaped piece of land that sits in a prominent corner location next to the junctions of [address] and [address]. The character of the immediate area is predominantly residential, mainly comprising terrace properties with a mixture of untouched hipped and pitched roofs. However, [address], a large part two, part three storey sheltered housing facility is located to the southern side of the site.

I have been made aware of an extant planning permission for a dwelling on this site (02825/18). The Council has therefore raised no objection to the principle of development and I have no reason to disagree with this view. It is also common ground between the main parties that other than for the proposed rear dormer, front canopy, and other minor alterations the proposed dwelling would be identical in terms of its size, scale and design, as the previously approved dwelling.

The Council has not raised any objections to the design of the proposed front canopy and I have no reason to question this. Nonetheless, the proposed rear dormer would be of substantial size and scale, occupying a vast proportion of the proposed dwelling’s rear roof plane. This element of the proposal would provide significant additional visual bulk and dominance to the building and would result in an oversized, top heavy and conspicuous form of development. This impact would be compounded by the use of the mid-light grey render, which would contrast with the much darker colour of the marley modern roof tiles, thereby drawing the eye, and further accentuating its visual prominence.

Whilst it would not be visible from the front of the site, the proposal’s gable elevation would be sited perpendicular to the [address] highway. The discordant effect of the proposed rear dormer, particularly in the context of the untouched roof forms of adjacent neighbouring dwellings, would therefore be plainly visible when approaching from the south of [address] and from a number of neighbouring properties.

The appellant argues that the proposed extension has been designed to comply with permitted development right allowances. However, it is uncontested that the previously approved dwelling (02825/18) had its permitted development rights removed. This therefore limits the weight that I can attach to it as a valid fall-back position.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such it would conflict with Policy CG3 of Bolton’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2011) ([name]). This seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that developments have regard to the built character of an area. It would also fail to comply with advice contained in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document entitled ‘[name] (2012) (SPD1). Amongst other matters, this sets out that a dormer no more than two thirds of the area of the roof plane may be acceptable, and that the face and cheeks of a new dormer should, where possible, match in colour and texture the materials of the roof.

I recognise that SPD1 specifically refers to householder extensions, however in the absence of any other design guidance on rear dormers before me, I find this to be a helpful guide and a material consideration in the context of this appeal.

I recognise that [address] is positioned at an angle to the rear of the appeal site and that existing vegetation would screen some views between the respective windows of the appeal dwelling and this neighbouring property.

Nonetheless, the proposal would have a habitable bedroom window positioned within the rear elevation of the proposed dormer. If this appeal was to be allowed, this bedroom window would be very close, albeit at an angle, to the first and second floor windows within the rear elevation of [address].

According to the Council’s uncontested measurements the distance to the nearest window in [address] would be approximately 11.8 metres. This would fall considerably short of the recommended interface distances contained within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document entitled ‘General Design Principles’ (SPD2). As a useful rule of thumb, this suggests that where there is an oblique view, a 17 metre separation distance, plus an additional 3 metres for an additional storey, should be provided between elevations containing a main window to a main room for two storey properties.

I appreciate that these windows would not directly face each other. However, given the close proximity between them, and the second floor height of the proposed rear dormer, I do not consider that there would be such a restricted and oblique viewpoint from the proposed bedroom window and [address]’s first and second floor windows to prevent a substantial amount of overlooking occurring.

On my site visit I also saw that the existing vegetation does not completely screen the upper sections and the first and second floor rear windows within [address]. It would also not constitute permanent screening as much of this vegetation is deciduous. [address]’s windows would therefore be more visible from the proposed development in the winter months.

I note the appellant’s willingness to accept a planning condition to obscurely glaze the bedroom window within the proposed rear dormer. However, this would be the only source of natural light and outlook for the users of this room. I do not consider that the reduction in light and outlook that would be caused by the obscure glazing to provide an acceptable living environment for future residents. It would also be unreasonable to expect residents to draw their curtains for the majority of the day.

In light of the above, I do not consider that any of these factors would constitute sufficient mitigation to overcome the harm that would be caused to the privacy levels of neighbouring residents.

The appellant contends that other local authorities have approved developments with overlooking constraints subject to a planning condition for windows up to a height of 1.7 metres are obscurely glazed, including those that serve living rooms. However, I have not been provided with any examples of such cases so am unable to be certain that their circumstances would be comparable to those which apply in this appeal. I have, in any case, determined the appeal based on its own merits.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of the residents of [address], in respect of privacy. It would thereby conflict with Core Strategy Policy CG4, which seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses and occupiers, protecting amenity, privacy, safety and security. It would also fail to comply with advice within SPD2.

In reaching my findings I have had regard to the contribution that a three bedroom house would make to the supply of housing in the area. However, given that the proposal is only for a single dwelling, any benefits in this respect would be somewhat limited. I have also been made aware of the appellant’s design constraints and technical restrictions, and the potential financial implications due to the previously approved dwelling not complying with Building Regulations. However, these factors do not outweigh or overcome the harm that I have found that the proposal would cause to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

I also note that the appellant is dissatisfied with the Council’s communication during the processing of the planning application. However, this matter has not had any bearing on my decision as I have only had regard to the planning merits of the proposal that is before me.

For the reasons given above, having taken account of the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should therefore be dismissed.