Appeal 3317017

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of 2 no. front dormers at [site address] , [site address] , Thornbury [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P22/05725/HH, dated 28 September 2022, subject to the following conditions:

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

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 01A, 02, 03A, 05, 06, 08, 09, 10.

The development was described on the application form as set out in the heading above. This was amended by the Council to “Installation of 2 no. front dormers and lowering of first-floor (side) dormer”. This describes the proposal more succinctly. However, the Council has now confirmed that the lowering of the window on the side elevation does not need planning permission. As a result, that element of the proposal has been implemented. I have therefore used the amended description of “Installation of 2 no. front dormers” as the basis for my decision.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular reference to any overlooking of that property’s rear garden.

The proposal involves the replacement of two existing rooflights by two new dormer windows. The front elevation of [site address] faces across an access drive towards the rear garden of [address]. It would therefore be possible to see into that garden from the proposed dormer windows, to an extent that is not the case from the existing rooflights, which are located higher in the rooms that they light.

Overlooking would not be an issue from the new window lighting the bathroom, as it could be glazed in obscure glass and conditioned as such. I do not consider that the fact that this obscurely glazed window would be visible from parts of No 6’s garden would amount to material harm, by reason of perceived overlooking.

The issue is therefore the extent to which overlooking of the neighbours’ rear garden is possible from the new window lighting bedroom 1. I was able to assess the views that would be possible from that window by using a stepladder to look out of the existing rooflight. As a result, I agree with the appellants that the amount of No 6’s rear garden that would be visible from this window would be limited. The boundary wall would prevent views of the part of the garden closest to that wall. In addition, the presence of a number of mature evergreen trees and shrubs would further obscure possible views.

I accept that these trees and shrubs will not be in place in perpetuity. However, I do not consider that the amount of overlooking that would be possible, even without them, would be unacceptable in this part of Thornbury, where the juxtaposition of houses means that some degree of mutual overlooking is almost inevitable. I have given weight to the advice in Section 3.2 of the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document, entitled “[name]”. However, I do not consider that the limited overlooking that would be possible in this case would amount to an unacceptable loss of privacy.

I conclude that the development would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], and would comply with Policies PSP8 and PSP38 of the [site address] Local Plan Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017). These policies seek to prevent development proposals that would have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby properties, by reason of, amongst other things, loss of privacy and overlooking.

The appeal site lies within the Thornbury Conservation Area. The Conservation Area (CA) covers an area centred on Thornbury town centre, and includes an area of “back lanes” to the east of the centre, where the appeal site is located. The CA’s significance stems from its history as a medieval market town, and in part from its historic buildings and layout.

The Council do not allege that the proposal would harm the character or appearance of the CA. I agree that any impact on the character and appearance of the area by the appeal scheme would be localised and would not adversely effect the CA or its setting.

As well as standard conditions requiring development to commence within three years and requiring compliance with the approved plans, I agree that a condition requiring external materials to match those used in the existing building is necessary, in order to protect the character and appearance of the CA. For clarity, this does not extend to the use of lead to cover the dormer windows, which is clearly shown on the submitted plans.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out above.