Appeal 3288422

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for dormers to front and rear elevations together with alterations to the roof, 3 No. rooflights and use of garage as additional accommodation at [address], Seasalter, Whitstable [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/21/01993, dated 9 August 2021 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: P01A (Location Plan, Proposed Block Plan, Existing and [name] and Plans) and P02 ([name]).

An application for costs was made by [name] against Canterbury City Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regards to overlooking.

The appeal property is a modestly proportioned bungalow located on the north side of [address]. The property backs onto 25c [name], the occupiers of which have objected to the proposal on the basis that it would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking.

Policies DBE3 and DBE6 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2017 (LP) require new development to have sufficient regard for the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Extensions will be permitted provided they do not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy or create unacceptable overlooking or overshadowing of neighbouring properties.

The Council’s Decision Notice alleges that the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy. The minutes from the Planning Committee meeting refer to “the nature of the fenestration and distance from the neighbour 25C [name] to the north”. [name] accept there would be some change in the outlook to the rear of No 25c as a result of the development, one has to accept this is a built-up residential area where a degree of mutual overlooking is inevitable.

As the [name] explains “Views towards the properties to the rear would be at long range, with a separation distance of approximately 30m.” On that basis alone, it is difficult to understand how Members concluded there would be an unacceptable impact when 21m is the generally accepted distance between opposing rear elevations. To compound matters, the Council recently accepted distances less than 30m in respect of a proposal for four dwellings on the adjacent plot1.

In this case, the ample amount of physical separation, mature landscaping along the shared boundary, most of which appears to be under the control of No 25c, and the difference in levels, would satisfactorily mitigate the impact of the development on the occupiers of No 25c. In light of the foregoing, I conclude that there would be no unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers and no conflict with [name] DBE3 and DBE6.

In the interests of planning and to provide certainty, I have imposed time limit and plans conditions. In light of my conclusions above and given that it is inconceivable that obscure glazing would not be installed to the upper floor bathroom, I do not consider the glazing condition meets the test of necessity.

For the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.