Appeal 3319693

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit the first floor window with which this appeal is concerned had already been installed and had an opaque film applied to the lower section of glazing. I shall return to this matter.

Planning permission was originally granted for various amendments to the appeal dwelling, subject to a number of conditions. Condition 2 stated the approved plans. It is this condition which the appellant seeks to vary in order to account for the window which has been installed on the first floor of the side elevation and serves a newly formed bedroom.

The main issue is therefore the effect that varying the approved plans would have on the living conditions of occupiers at [address], with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal property is a two storey dwellinghouse located within a built-up residential area. The concerned first floor window is on the side elevation adjacent to No 45, a two storey dwellinghouse. This window has a very close and direct relationship with a ground floor habitable room of No 45 and its rear garden.

At the time of my site visit, whilst the lower section of the window was obscured, by opening the upper section and obtaining a view from it I was able to get direct views into the garden of No 45 and its rear conservatory. The solid roof design of the conservatory does not prevent views into this room. From these observations, along with the photographs provided by the appellant, it is clear to me that if the lower section of glazing of this window were transparent it would provide significant opportunities to overlook the aforementioned areas of No 45.

Indeed, the appellant states that they have installed the film to the lower section of glazing of the window in order to protect the privacy of the neighbours and the occupants of the bedroom.

I consider that views into No 45 could be achieved from various viewpoints in the bedroom, particularly from the space alongside the bed which allows one to get up close to the window. I acknowledge that the repositioning of the bed across the window would somewhat limit overlooking. However, there is no mechanism by which I could reasonably control the placement of furniture. Moreover, there is no guarantee that this room would always be used as a bedroom. It could, for example, be used as a home office or other use in which occupiers would likely spend more time up close to the window and obtaining views from it.

Whilst the lower section of the window has been obscured with the opaque film, the submitted plans indicate that this window would be glazed, with no reference to the use of obscure glazing or a film. I have determined this appeal accordingly.

Nevertheless, even if I were to consider this proposal as installed with the film, or indeed with the imposition of a condition requiring the glazing to be obscured, this raises concerns in my mind with regard to the effect this would have on the living conditions of occupiers of the appeal dwelling. [name] experienced, the lack of outlook makes this habitable room oppressive and the limited transparent glazing restricts natural light.

I appreciate that the rear facing windows of the appeal dwelling currently provide views into the garden of No 45. However, this mutual overlooking relationship is commonplace in built up residential areas and, moreover, these views are of the rear most section of the garden. To the contrary, the transparent side window would provide additional views into a habitable room and the most private part of the rear garden closest to the rear of the dwelling. To this extent, the overlooking would be more harmful than that which currently occurs from the rear windows.

Accordingly, the proposed variation of condition 2 would harm the living conditions of occupiers at [address]. It therefore conflicts with Policy SE1 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030 (July 2017) and Policy HOU12 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (December 2022) which collectively seek to ensure the developments do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Consequently, condition 2 is reasonable and necessary.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.