Appeal 3331091

The appeal is dismissed.

The development described has been carried out and as such the appeal is retrospective. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

[address] is a residential street which has a range of different house types including two storey houses and bungalows, many of which have been subject to alterations and extensions. The street runs in parallel with [address] and some of the rear gardens of the properties along it back on to one another.

The appeal property (No35) is a semi-detached bungalow with a small rear garden. It has been subject to a hip to gable roof extension with dormers to the front and rear elevations under LPA reference 21/00240/FULH.

Condition 4 of that permission requires that the first floor windows in the gable end and rear dormer are obscured glazed and retained as such in perpetuity. The reason given for this was to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No’s 30 and [address], which back on to the appeal site.

What has been constructed differs from the requirement of Condition 4, in that the bedroom window within the rear dormer has not been obscure glazed and has clear glass, it is also openable. I also note that a Breach of Condition notice has been issued by the council (LPA reference 22/00246/BRCN_B).

Policy DM1 ([name]) of the Southend-on-Sea Development Management Document (2015) (DMD) specifically sets out that (amongst other things) development should protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers (para 2.6) and apply to the extensions of new development as well as new development. The Southend-on-Sea Design and [name] (2009) (SPD) provides additional guidance on how, through appropriate design, such impacts can be avoided or minimised.

From the approved plan 2410-02 ([name], Elevations and Roof Plan, Site Location and Block Plan) and the site visit, the dormer window to the front of the appeal property is clear glazed, providing an acceptable outlook and natural light into the room. I therefore do not agree with the appellants (as asserted in para 4.14 of their appeal statement) that a second clear glazed window serving the bedroom would be required to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of the appeal property.

No’s 30 and [address] back on to the rear garden of the appeal property and I could see at the site visit that they were close enough that overlooking could easily occur. I do note that the appellant at 4.4 of their statement argues that No32 [address], being at an oblique angle would not suffer from direct overlooking and I agree that this would be less of an issue. However, this does not extend to the occupiers of No.30.

[name] acknowledge there is already a degree of overlooking into gardens from existing neighbouring properties, the addition of clear glazed windows within the box dormer at the appeal property would significantly add to this, resulting in what I consider to be harm to the occupiers of No’s [address].

The appellant argues that No30 [address] has clear glazed windows in a bathroom overlooking the appeal property when it should be obscure glazed but provide no evidence to show whether this is a requirement (such as a planning condition), only the description in an estate agents flier for No30.

The appellant also cites a similar case at 71 [name], [name] (LPA reference 20/02066/AMDT) (no [name] has been supplied for the subsequent appeal) and argues that this sets a precedent. I am unable to take this decision into account as no information has been provided to me about the case other than the limited information at paragraph 4.5 of the appellants statement. In any event, I am required to determine this appeal on its own merits.

I therefore consider that a clear glazed, openable rear bedroom window in this case would be contrary to policy DM1 of the DMD and the relevant parts of the SPD.

The appellant raises a final point at paragraph 5.1 of their appeal statement that the rear bedroom window should be opening in order to provide a means of escape during a fire. This has not been supported by any evidence. In any event, such matters are dealt with under separate legislation and their specific point in this regard does not alter my conclusions.

For the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.