Appeal 3279436

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension and change of use of loft into habitable accommodation, including dormer windows to sides at [site address] [site address] , Donnington [postcode] , in accordance with the application [name]/21/00440/DOM made on 12 February 2021 without compliance with condition no3, previously imposed on planning permission [name]/20/01904/DOM, dated 5 October 2020, with no conditions imposed.

An application for costs was made in respect of this appeal and which is the subject of a separate decision.

As highlighted above, planning permission was granted in October 2020 for the erection of a single storey rear extension and change of use of loft into habitable accommodation, including dormer windows to sides at the appeal site, [site address] [site address] .

Condition no3, imposed upon planning permission D/20/01904/DOM sought to prohibit first occupation of the roof extension until the first floor windows within both dormers, to the east and west roof elevations, were glazed with obscure glass and non-opening for all parts of the windows where below 1.7m above the floor of the rooms which they would serve.

The proposed development was substantially complete at the time of my site visit and I noted that the windows were obscured by a temporary material.

The reason for the imposition of the condition was to protect the privacy of the occupants of the adjoining residential properties; and therefore the main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the living conditions of the occupants of 48 and 52 [site address] , with specific reference to privacy.

The application site is located within a well established residential area where there is a mix of dwelling types, including bungalows, chalet-bungalows and two plus storey houses. I noted on my site visit that similar dormers have been installed at 44 [site address] and its relationship to no 46, also a bungalow, is not that dissimilar from the proposal before me.

Views afforded from the windows installed at the appeal site primarily overlook the roofs of nos 48 and 52, and whilst I accept that there could be a degree of overlooking towards the rear garden areas of these neighbouring properties, such views would be oblique. In any case, with the presence of other above ground floor level accommodation provided within some surrounding dwellings, a degree of mutual overlooking within the rear garden scene is inevitable.

I acknowledge that the condition imposed was in line with the requirements of Permitted Development Rights for first floor windows in side elevations, but the proposal before me was the subject of a planning application and therefore is not wholly relevant to this case. I also note that the Council acknowledged the presence of the gable end windows to the front and rear with the latter-most certainly facilitating some overlooking of neighbouring rear gardens, although the Council did not object to that being clear glazed. 10.Having regard to the fact that the principle views from said windows will be over the existing roofs of the neighbouring bungalows, I consider that in this particular case, the imposition of condition no 3 upon planning permission D/20/01904/DOM was not necessary. Therefore in allowing this appeal, I grant non-compliance thereto.

I find this complies with Policy 33 of the Chichester Local Plan Policies 2014 – 2029 which states for new residential development permission will be granted where it can be demonstrated, amongst other things, that the proposal respects the character of the surrounding area, including having regard to neighbouring and public amenity. 2

As the proposed extensions and loft conversion are substantially complete it is not necessary to impose the standard three year implementation condition, neither is it necessary to require the development to be carried out either in accordance with the approved plans or that the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development match those used on the pre-existing building. I therefore grant planning permission with no