Appeal 3272840

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the appeal has been lodged the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been issued on 20 July 2021. However, there have been no material changes to the requirements in the Framework’s policies for developments to provides high standards of amenity. Therefore, it has not been necessary to go back to the parties for further comments in this particular instance.

The appellant’s submission includes a revised drawing. Given its pertinence to the appellant’s case, I have taken this plan into consideration insofar as it illustrates the potential position of a pedestrian door in the north-east side elevation of the approved garage extension.

The garage extension and side windows which have been granted planning permission would sit close to the boundary with the neighbouring property annotated on the site location plan provided as ‘[name]. The appellant’s principal concern relates to the restriction within Condition 6 which prevents any other opening being formed in the north-east elevation of the dwelling as this would prevent them from providing a pedestrian door to the garage extension on this side elevation. I have therefore primarily focussed on this particular matter within my assessment of the main issue.

The main issue is therefore whether Condition 6 is reasonable and necessary, having regard to the living conditions of occupiers of [name], [address] with particular regard to privacy.

The dwellings at Mistra and [name] are set back a substantial distance from their front boundaries and there is mature planting within their frontages including to their shared boundary. Consequently, the immediate frontages of these dwellings currently benefit from good levels of privacy.

On my site visit, I saw for myself that the boundary of the site with [name] tapers towards the position of the approved garage extension. Based on the site block plan and the internal floor plan provided, a door opening to the north-east side elevation to serve the garage would be at a point within this elevation where the building would either abut or afford only very limited space between the boundary with [name]. The site block plan also indicates that the existing leylandii hedge to this boundary would be removed.

Even if any door opening to serve the garage within the north-east side elevation was of a solid nature with no glazed elements, it would encourage activity in very close proximity to the boundary with [name]. There is no evidence before me to indicate that there would be sufficient space within the appeal site to provide replacement screening. In combination, these factors mean that there would be a potential increase in the likelihood of occupiers of Mistra standing on or immediately next to this section of the boundary with views towards the front elevation and immediate garden area serving [name]. This would result in a loss of privacy when compared with the existing situation.

The appellant contends that the existing garage has benefited from a pedestrian door onto the path at the side of the house, that the use of such a door would only be occasional and that the neighbour does not object to a standard inward opening unglazed door. However, the frequency of use could not be reasonably controlled and I must have regard to the privacy of occupiers of [name] in the longer term including any future occupants. Furthermore, given the tapered alignment of the boundary and the greater gap between the side elevation of the existing garage, it is not comparable to the tighter site constraints relative to the north-east side elevation of the proposed garage.

The appellant accepts the remaining requirements of Condition 6 insofar as it relates to the approved side elevation windows and also prevents any additional windows being formed in the north-east elevation of the dwelling. From the evidence before me and from what I saw on site in terms of the relationship with the adjoining property at [name], I find no reason to reach a different conclusion.

I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the variation of condition 6 to allow for a door opening in the north-east side elevation of the garage could be undertaken without harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [name] with particular regard to privacy. In that regard and in all other respects condition 6 is reasonable and necessary and complies with the requirements which seek to protect residential amenity in Policy DC 1 ([name]) of the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (2020) and the Framework.

The appellant contends that the new garage is only sited in close proximity to the boundary with [name] as a previous application for a detached garage was refused by the Council. Whether or not this is the case, this does not overcome my findings under the main issue.

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.