Appeal 3300550

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 2020/2658, for part two/part single-storey rear/side extensions, single-storey front extension, front canopy, rear dormer windows, rooflights, alteration to fenestration and replacement roof and gable to front projections following partial demolition of existing dwelling and removal of chimney stacks at [site address] , Surrey [postcode] granted on 18 October 2021 by Elmbridge Borough Council, varied by deleting condition No 3. All other conditions on 2020/2658 are continued in full force and effect.

The main issue is whether the restrictions applied are necessary to safeguard residential amenity.

The appeal property is a detached two storey dwelling in a pleasing suburban locality of varied style, generally detached, homes with good sized gardens. The appeal property is the last one in a row on the inside before the road turns at right angles. Consequently ‘round the corner’ a number of dwellings abut the appeal site at right angles via their rear gardens. In the case of No [address] its rear garden is primarily but not wholly on a plane forward of the front elevation of the appeal property. I observed that it is thus possible, leaning forward, to obtain an oblique view into parts of this rear garden from the nearest upper floor front facing window in the appeal dwelling.

The question is whether the degree of possible oblique viewing opportunities from within this bedroom justifies a planning condition that the window should be obscure glazed and limited in opening capability.

Within a residential environment of this nature there will always be a degree of intervisibility, not least through having first floor accommodation alongside every plot. It is highly likely that the everyday use of this bedroom would, when people are looking out, have them facing the road, looking straight ahead, generally positioned back from a window cill which itself is relatively high meaning one gets no view of the ground when seated. With usual household practice I would not expect a bedroom to have much use during normal daytime, not least given the very generous range and floor area of living space. Even if one made a determined effort to view across and into the rear garden there are appreciable parts which would always remain unseen due to vegetation, built structures and angles. The imposition of obscure glazing and restricted openings for a bedroom, and the loss of amenity to that bedroom, are not justified by the very limited possible effects on residents at No 16.

Given these points, in my opinion the imposition of the disputed condition was not necessary or reasonable. I am sorry that this will probably be a source of disappointment to the neighbours but I have considered matters very carefully in the round and I do conclude that the disputed condition was applied unnecessarily.

Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan 2015 (LP) seeks to ensure that development does not have any undue adverse impact on living conditions at adjoining properties. This is reflected within the Council’s Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (SPD) albeit that publication cannot be expected to cover every eventuality. I conclude that this proposal to delete the condition in question would not conflict with Policy DM2 or the SPD on the matter of residential amenity.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Planning Practice Guidance have been considered in all relevant respects including on the question of appropriate use of planning conditions. The development plan policy which I cite mirrors relevant objectives within the Framework. 2

I have found that the condition is not necessary or reasonable for reasons relating to safeguarding residential amenity. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.