Appeal 3302753

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for enlargement of first floor window on south west elevation at Swallows, [site address] , Kingsbridge [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 0670/22/HHO, dated 21 April 2022, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 001C (Location Plan), 022B ([name]).

Swallows is a detached dwelling which has recently been extended. As part of this development, planning permission1 was granted for a first floor bedroom window in the south west elevation of the dwelling. However, the window that was subsequently installed is larger than that permitted. The appellant seeks retrospective permission to retain the larger window.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers having particular regard to privacy.

The bedroom window in question faces the rear elevations of No’s 2 and [address]. When standing inside the bedroom and looking out of the window, the opposing ground floor and first floor windows in No’s 2 and 4 are visible, along with parts of the rear gardens of those properties. However, due to the degree of separation, there are no clear views inside the rooms of the neighbouring dwellings. Furthermore, large parts of the neighbouring gardens are obscured from view behind vegetation and a garage block. 1 Council Ref: 346/18/HHO and 0688/21/HHO.

[name] is on higher ground than No’s 2 and 4, the main outlook from the bedroom window is over and above the roofs of the neighbouring dwellings and towards the estuary. In fact, the gardens and rear windows of the neighbouring properties are not seen from all parts of the bedroom and only come into full view when standing close against the window. As the main living room of Swallows is situated on the ground floor, it is unlikely that residents would linger at this bedroom window for long periods of the day or focus their attention on the neighbouring properties. Overall, the window does not substantially erode the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers.

I am also mindful that planning permission exists for a smaller window in the same room and this is very likely to be implemented in the event of this appeal being dismissed. This window would provide views of the neighbouring gardens and rear elevations in much the same way as the existing window would. Although the field of view inside the bedroom would be slightly reduced with this smaller window, the effect would be negligible and would make little practical difference to the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. Retention of the existing window would have no greater impact on privacy than the window which already benefits from planning permission.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. There would be no conflict with Policy DEV1 of the Local Plan2 or the overarching objectives of the SPD3, which both seek appropriate standards of privacy.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed. In the interests of clarity, I have imposed a condition requiring compliance with the plans. While the Council has suggested a condition requiring obscure glazing, this is unnecessary in light of my findings above.