Appeal 3274931

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 72847 for demolition of existing extensions, erection of extensions & raising of roof ridge for additional accommodation to dwelling at [site address] granted on 7 April 2021 by North Devon District Council, is varied by deleting conditions 6 and 7.

An application for costs was made by [name] against North Devon District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Planning permission has been granted for alterations and extensions to the dwelling, including an increase in its ridge height, and the insertion of three dormer windows in the rear roofslope. Two of the planning conditions that were imposed required a number of windows in the altered dwelling to be either obscure glazed, or obscure glazed and fixed shut. The appeal is against these conditions. Consequently, the main issue is whether the non-opening and/or obscure glazing is necessary to protect the living conditions of the occupants of surrounding residential properties, with regard to privacy.

[site address] is one of a row of four houses that are set back behind a loop in the road that encloses an area of public open space to the front. It has a long rear garden that backs onto the similarly extensive rear gardens of the bungalows that front [address]. As a result, the front and rear elevations of the house do not face any other dwellings in close proximity. Its side elevations are, however, close to those of the adjacent houses. Generally, the area has a quiet, residential character, with a mixture of houses and bungalows on relatively large plots, where occupants enjoy a high level of privacy in their dwellings and gardens.

Conditions 6 and 7 require seven windows to be obscure glazed, and three of these to be fixed shut. The Council’s statement also refers to a ground floor bathroom window on the front elevation that is labelled on the plans as obscure glass. However, this window is not covered by either of the contested conditions. The Council’s statement also indicates that it has reviewed its position since the decision was made, and accepts that only the second-floor dormer windows, and the first-floor window in the west elevation need to be obscure glazed to maintain the privacy of the occupants of surrounding dwellings.

Condition 6 requires a ground floor bedroom window in the front elevation to be obscure glazed. This window would look onto the front garden and the public open space beyond. The windows in the nearest houses on the other side of the open space are approximately 50 metres away, and observed at much closer quarters by pedestrians using the pavements. The Council’s statement concedes that there is no justification for the requirement for this window to be glazed in obscure glass, and I saw nothing to persuade me otherwise.

Condition 7 requires the first-floor window in the east side elevation to be obscure glazed and fixed shut. This is no longer contested by the Council. I saw that there is already a clear-glazed and openable window in this position serving a bedroom. It looks towards the side elevation of the adjacent house, which only contains a small obscure glazed window. With the window open a view over the adjacent rear garden is also possible. However, the window already exists, and it would not be enlarged. Although it would serve a lounge, it would not increase the extent of overlooking that could be achieved. In these circumstances, the requirement for fixed pane obscure glazing is not necessary to protect the privacy of the adjoining occupants.

Condition 7 also requires a first-floor bathroom window in the rear elevation to be obscure glazed and fixed shut. This window would, however, be located between three larger windows in the rear elevation that would serve a lounge, office and snug. None of these windows are covered by the contested conditions, so they are likely to be clear glazed and openable. The bathroom window would not, therefore, result in any additional overlooking.

The Council no longer contests the requirement for this window to be fixed shut, but suggests that, as it serves a bathroom, it should be obscure glazed. The window is labelled as obscure glazed on the approved drawings, and it is unlikely that the appellants would install a clear glazed window in a bathroom. However, even if it were clear glazed, there would be no additional overlooking. A condition requiring obscure glazing of this window would not, therefore, be necessary or reasonable. I note that the Council’s suggested conditions do not include such a requirement.

The third window that is required to be obscure glazed and fixed shut is a first floor WC window in the west side elevation. The approved plans indicate that this window will be obscure glass. The Council no longer considers it necessary for this window to be fixed shut. I saw that this window would look towards the blank gable wall of the adjacent house, with potential oblique views to the rear garden. However, it would not increase the level of overlooking that is already possible from the balcony on the rear of the house, which is at the same level. Furthermore, the approved drawings show a larger second floor window in this side gable, directly above, which is not covered by the contested conditions. Consequently, even if clear glazed, the WC window would not result in increased overlooking. A condition requiring obscure glazing of this window would not, therefore, be necessary or reasonable.

Condition 6 requires the approved dormer windows in the rear roofslope to be obscure glazed. It is argued by the appellant that clear-glazed dormer windows can be installed as permitted development. However, in this case, the dormers are part of the overall proposals, which involve a raising of the ridge, so permission is required. It has not been demonstrated that clear glazed dormers could be provided in the positions proposed as permitted development, so I have not given any weight to this potential fallback position.

The dormer windows would be a storey higher than any of the existing windows in the house, or those of the adjacent houses, so would be more visible from surrounding properties above the intervening vegetation. However, the dwelling has a long rear garden, so the windows would be at least 20 metres from the rear garden boundaries of the bungalows in [address]. Furthermore, the gardens of these properties are even longer. Consequently, there would be a considerable distance between the windows in the dormers and those in the rear elevations of the nearest bungalows in [address]. The appellant’s evidence that this would be at least 56.59 metres has not been challenged. This is a much greater distance than is often considered necessary to avoid harmful overlooking between back-to-back dwellings. Over such a distance, there would not be a material loss of privacy for occupants within the bungalows.

I viewed the proposals from the rear garden of No [address] at my visit, which also allowed an appreciation of the impact on the garden of No 15. The dormer windows would be a more visible presence for occupants in these gardens, magnified to some extent by the lower ground level of the bungalows. Nevertheless, the windows would be a considerable distance from the garden boundaries, and the parts of the gardens nearest to the boundaries would be screened from the dormer windows by boundary vegetation. As a result, the dormers would not be an overly intrusive presence. Although they may give rise to some perception of overlooking, the distances involved, and the fact that parts of the gardens would be unaffected, means that obscure glazing would not be necessary to ensure that occupants of [address] would retain a high standard of privacy in their gardens.

The dormer windows would look over the rear gardens of the adjacent houses in [address] from a higher level. However, this would not enable closer views, or views of parts of the gardens that cannot already be seen from the existing balcony and first floor windows. The provision of clear glazing in the dormer windows would not, therefore, be harmful to the current level of privacy enjoyed by the occupants of these houses.

Policy DM01 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 (the Local Plan) is referred to in the reasons for the conditions. This Policy says that development will be supported where it would not significantly harm the amenities of any neighbouring occupiers. For the above reasons, I have found that it is not necessary for any of the windows to be obscure glazed or fixed shut to avoid significant harm to the living conditions of the occupants of surrounding properties. The development, without the disputed conditions, would, therefore, comply with Policy DM01 of the Local Plan.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed conditions.