Appeal 3294605

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with particular regard to privacy.

The proposal would introduce a two-storey rear extension to the host dwelling, creating an extended bedroom at first floor and garden room at ground floor. It includes a high-level window in the first-floor rear elevation facing the rear elevations of properties along [address] and a window in the first-floor side elevation facing the rear garden of [address] (No. 14).

The separation distance between the window on the side elevation of the proposed extension and the boundary with No. 14 does not accord the [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2021) (SPD) guidance.

[name] acknowledge the offset position of the proposed extension from the boundary with No. 14, the large side-facing bedroom window would offer clear views into the garden of No. [address] distance. Some overlooking is expected and tolerable in residential areas and already occurs to some degree at the appeal site and surrounding properties. However, overlooking from this window toward the neighbouring property would be significant and harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers.

Notwithstanding an existing window on the first-floor gable of the host dwelling already affords views towards the garden of No. 14, this serves a landing rather than a room where people would be likely to spend longer periods rather than passing movements. This would not justify the proposed window, even if the existing clear glazed landing window was obscured.

The existing rear bedroom window at the appeal site affords some views towards properties to the rear and rear gardens of 12 and [address]. The proposed high-level window in the rear elevation would reduce any overlooking that currently occurs and therefore be of benefit. Even so, the additional large side window would afford closer range, direct views rather than angled views to the side and longer distance views from the existing rear elevation windows.

While it is suggested the side window be altered to a high level one, there are no plans to this effect before me. The use of partial, although no clarification of the extent of this, or a full obscure glazing window would reduce overlooking. However, the only other window serving the room would be a high-level and a further obscure glazed window (even if only partially obscurely glazed) would result in poor outlook for the occupant of this room.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with regard to privacy. It would therefore conflict with Policy QE6 of the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) which requires development to respect the living conditions of existing neighbouring residential occupiers in relation to, amongst other things, overlooking/loss of privacy, an objective shared with the SPD.

Although there were no objections to the proposed development, a lack of objection is not a reason to approve unacceptable development.

The proposed development would provide better living conditions for the occupiers of the appeal property. No compelling evidence or alternative schemes have been put forward to indicate these aims could not be achieved in another, less harmful way. Therefore, I afford this personal benefit limited weight. That there are no refusal reasons relating to outlook, light, or the living conditions of the occupiers of other adjacent properties would only be a neutral factor.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no other considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.