Appeal 3278876

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side and rear single storey extension at [site address] , Downend Park, [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/00604/FUL, dated 26 February 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:

Prior to the first use of the master bedroom hereby approved, a 1.8 metre high privacy screen, positioned along the entire south-west side of the roof of the single-storey extension, shall be installed and thereafter retained at all times. The privacy screen shall be obscurely glazed to a minimum level 3 within the Pilkington range of [name], or equivalent, so to prevent any persons obtaining views of the neighbouring property through it. The screen shall not be altered to clear glazing or opening without the specific grant of planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

An appeal decision on the site was allowed1 in September for a two-storey side and rear and single storey rear extensions and roof terrace. This proposal appears to be different to that scheme in so much as it excludes the use of the roof terrace and no longer includes a rear window for the master bedroom.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of 4 Brockhampton (No 4) with particular respect to privacy.

The appeal dwelling is within a modern housing estate with a relatively close-knit pattern of development. The site is an irregular shape and includes 1 Planning Appeal Reference: APP/Y0435/D/21/3272935 boundary planting that affords some screening to neighbouring development, especially at ground floor level.

At the time of my visit the development was largely complete apart from the addition of railings for the Juliette balcony. The proposed master bedroom would be served by this opening as its single source of natural light. When closed, these obscurely glazed doors prevent an external view. Nevertheless, when open, views encompass some of the first-floor rear elevation of No 4 including two-bedroom windows and a landing window.

The Council’s Residential Development Design Guide (2012) (SPD) requires a separation distance of 22 metres to be achieved between back-to-back relationships to protect privacy. Although the Juliette balcony is on a side elevation, it represents a back-to-back relationship being the sole source of light for the room.

The outlook towards No 4, with the doors open, is partially obscured due to the parapet edge of the single-storey extension and some hedge planting. Also, the relationship between these dwellings is not perpendicular, with the footprint of No 4 being oriented in a manner that reduces direct views into habitable rooms. Therefore, although the separation distance of the SPD is not achieved, the distance to neighbouring habitable rooms results in limited scope for overlooking. Furthermore, a privacy screen, that could be secured by planning condition, would ensure that overlooking from the master bedroom would be prevented. Accordingly, on this basis the proposal would not affect the living conditions of occupiers of No 4 with respect to privacy.

Consequently, the proposal would accord with policy D5 of the [site address] Plan 2016-2031 (2019). This seeks, among other matters, for development to create a reasonable degree of privacy for new and existing private living space and for overlooking to be limited to an acceptable degree.

The proposed extension is to the southwest of [address] and to the east of 3 Brockhampton. As such, these properties may receive reduced sunlight in the afternoon/evenings and mornings respectively. However, due to the separation distances and proximity of existing built form, the effects of sunlight and daylight to the habitable rooms of these dwellings would be negligible.

The rear outlook from the windows and gardens of surrounding development would have changed following the erection of the extension. Nevertheless, the design proposed extensions complements the existing dwelling and does not dominate the outlook from neighbouring properties to result in an unacceptable development.

The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) allows conditions to be used where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission, by mitigating the adverse effects. Accordingly, I have imposed a condition for a privacy screen to be installed to prevent overlooking towards the occupiers of No 4.

The Council has suggested a condition to prevent the Juliette balcony being altered. However, such a condition was not imposed by the previous appeal decision. To impose this would therefore be inconsistent with the previous decision. Furthermore, a condition to prevent change to the Juliette balcony would be unnecessary in the interests of privacy as the required screen would be adequate to provide sufficient privacy in isolation.

Furthermore, as the proposal is largely complete, conditions with respect to the commencement of development and approved plans would not be necessary. Also, as the materials used are a good match to the original dwelling, a condition seeking the use of matching materials is not required.

There are no material considerations that indicate the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.