Appeal 3288076

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 21/P/02055 for Variation of Condition 2 (plans) relating to Planning Application 17/P/01885 allowed at Appeal on 09/05/2018, including changes to fenestration, and the addition of solar panels and 2 light tubes at [site address] granted on 30 November 2021 by Guildford Borough Council, is varied by deleting condition 3.

I have also dealt with other appeals on this site, (Ref: APP/Y3615/W/21/3281892 and APP/Y3615/W/21/3284335). Those appeals are the subject of separate decisions.

The main issue is whether the disputed condition is reasonable and necessary in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at Nos. 30 and [address], with regards to privacy.

The appeal site comprises a two storey detached dwelling on [address]. It neighbours No. 30 to the west, a detached bungalow, and No. 34 to the east, a two storey detached dwelling.

Planning permission was granted at the site subject to numerous conditions, including that the rooflights on the east and west elevations of the appeal property would be fitted with obscured glazing and permanently fixed shut, unless more than 1.7 metres above the floor. This was in the interests of residential amenity and privacy. The rooflights have now been fitted.

The properties are situated close together, with little separation distance between the respective side elevations. As such, it is possible that a degree of overlooking of the neighbouring dwellings could occur from unobscured rooflights on the eastern and western sides of the roof slope at the property.

However, there are no windows on the facing elevation of No. 34 at this level, such that views in this direction from the rooflights at the appeal property would not look directly into habitable rooms. In addition, the height and angle of the rooflights relative to the neighbouring bungalow at No. 30 would also ensure no direct views into habitable rooms at this dwelling. As such, occupiers of these properties would not have their enjoyment of habitable rooms impacted by the proposal as there would be no loss of privacy.

Views from the unobstructed rooflights towards the rear amenity spaces of Nos. 30 and 34 would be possible but largely peripheral. In any event, even when looking in the direction of the neighbouring rear gardens, due to the angles of the rooflights the views of these spaces would not be clear or direct. As such, an overall limited level of actual and perceived overlooking of these spaces would result such that the privacy of neighbouring occupiers would not be unduly harmed.

Accordingly, the removal of the requirement for the rooflights at the property to be obscured would not result in unacceptable harm to neighbouring occupiers by way of overlooking. As such, condition 3 is neither reasonable or necessary in the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 30 and [address], with regards to privacy.

I note that the appellant has sought the removal of the condition in the interests of light and ventilation, and that these are already adequately provided by the other windows at the property. I further acknowledge that it is unlikely the disputed condition would be applicable to the rooflight above the staircase, given its distance from the floor. Nevertheless, I still consider that the condition is neither necessary or reasonable in the interests of residential amenity and privacy of neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed, and the planning permission is varied by deleting condition 3.