Appeal 3300210

The appeal is dismissed.

The original planning permission was granted subject to conditions, including that in dispute. The main purposes of the condition are to avoid doubt as to the approved plans and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with them.

The appellant seeks to vary the approved plans. In the originally approved plan a single storey side/infill extension was approved. Seen in plan section, this resembles a lean-to, with a sloping roof directly facing [address]. The approved plans show 3 large glazed and 2 smaller glazed openings inserted in the sloping roof. The appellant wishes to substitute another 3 large opening for the 2 smaller openings, making a total of 6 glazed openings in all. In effect, there would be a continuous strip of glazed openings in the sloping roof.

Having regard to the above, the main issue is the effect of increasing the amount of glazing on the living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular reference to light pollution.

The Council says that the originally submitted plans for the approved application showed a pattern of fenestration like that proposed now. The original proposal was unacceptable to the Council, and accordingly, the appellant modified the proposals to that eventually approved. The appellant now wishes to revert to the plans originally submitted with the previous application.

The Council’s position is that the amount of glazing proposed in the sloping roof is excessive and would prove harmful to the occupants of the next-door property by reason of light pollution. The appellant disputes this, describes the Council’s concerns as being based on ‘a subjective view’, and says that the Council has approved similar arrangements elsewhere.

Neither of the parties has produced calculations in support of their arguments, and no explanation has been provided as to why the additional larger openings are required. However, it appears to me that the principal reason why the additional glazed openings may be required is to enable more light to enter the room below during the day. It follows that, if this is the case, more artificial light will leave the property on dark evenings and at night through the additional openings than would otherwise be the case were this appeal not allowed.

Given the close proximity of No 9, and that its windows, including bedroom windows, directly look out at or overlook the proposed strip of glazing, I can understand the Council’s concern. To my mind, the continuous glazed strip, when illuminated, has the potential to cause harm by reason of additional light pollution and consequent nuisance to the neighbouring residents, harming their living conditions.

I therefore conclude that varying the condition in the manner proposed would harm neighbouring living conditions by reason of an unacceptable level of light pollution during the hours of darkness. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with that provision of LP policy L8 requiring all new development to protect the amenity and living conditions of occupants of existing, adjoining and neighbouring properties.

All other matters raised in the representations have been taken into account, including the appellants’ references to other approved schemes. However, whilst some weight has been given to those decisions, I have treated this appeal on its merits, as required. No other matter raised in the representations outweighs those that led me to my conclusions.