Appeal 3324075

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the residents of [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy. • Whether the proposed development provides adequate safeguarding of trees.

I appreciate that the proposal’s first-floor front window would not directly face any of the neighbouring properties’ windows. However, the proposed lounge window within the side elevation of the 2 storey element of the proposal has been orientated to directly overlook the rear garden area of No 9. The first-floor height and proximity of this window to the shared boundary with No 9’s rear garden area would thereby result in a substantial amount of overlooking and a significant loss of privacy to the users of this garden area.

The Council has also raised concerns about the proximity of the proposal to a window within the side elevation of No 9’s single storey side extension and its potential effect on outlook. However, the planning officer report confirms that this window is a secondary window that serves a kitchen/dining area. I am also satisfied that the angled relationship and the intervening distance between this window and the proposal is such, that large open aspects and a breadth of outlook would still be retained.

Whilst the proposal may conflict with some of the interface distances contained within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘[name] 2012 (SPD) in this respect, the SPD sets out that these distances are a useful rule of thumb and should not be read as a minimum standard. In this context, I therefore consider that the proposal would not be of such a size, scale and height as to result in a significant loss of outlook to this window.

The appellant’s willingness to make further amendments to the design of the proposal in order to provide screening measures suggested within the SPD is also noted. However, I must determine the appeal on the basis of the drawings submitted and the evidence before me.

In light of the above, I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of the residents of [address], in respect of privacy only. It would thereby conflict with Policy CG4 of Bolton’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2011 ([name]), which seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses and occupiers, protecting amenity, including privacy.

The Council states that insufficient information has been submitted to assess the impact of the proposal on trees that adjoin the site. However, it is unclear which trees its concerns relate to and I was unable to be certain of this on my site visit. I am also mindful that the proposal would only be marginally wider than the existing single storey side extension, and the nearest tree that I saw was not in proximity to this.

As such, I am unable to find that the proposed development would not provide adequate safeguarding of trees. No conflict would therefore arise with Core Strategy Policy CG1, which seeks to safeguard and enhance biodiversity in the borough by protecting sites of urban biodiversity including trees.

My attention has been drawn to a previous planning permission at No 9 (Ref: 07370/19), however, on the evidence presented I cannot be certain that this represents a direct parallel to the proposal. Frustrations about the Council’s lack of communication during the planning application stage are also noted. Nonetheless, this has not had any bearing on my decision as I have only had regard to the planning merits of the appeal proposal that is before me.

I am also mindful that the proposal would provide additional living accommodation for a member of the appellants’ family. [name] have considerable sympathy for the appellants’ household in this regard, personal circumstances seldom outweigh more general planning considerations, particularly where development would be permanent. Moreover, there is nothing in the evidence before me to indicate that the particular scheme proposed is the only way of achieving such benefits.

[name] have been unable to find that there would be an adverse effect in respect of outlook and trees, this is significantly outweighed by the harm that would be caused to the privacy levels of the residents of [address]. For the reasons given above, having taken account of the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should therefore be dismissed.