Appeal 3338605

The appeal is dismissed.

Subsequent to the Council issuing its decision the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 19 December 2023 and updated on 20 December 2023. The amendments to the Framework do not affect the matters that are in dispute in the determination of this appeal.

Planning permission, subject to conditions, was granted for several alterations to the appeal property. These alterations required as part of condition No 4 that windows created in the approved roof dormer are to be obscure glazed and fixed shut. The appellant is now seeking to remove condition No 4.

The main issue is whether the condition is reasonable or necessary in the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 8), with particular reference to privacy.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow situated on a short, staggered row of bungalows in close proximity. Situated within the roof slope of the appeal property is a large dormer with three windows facing No 8. As a result of the staggered building lines No 8 is set forward of the appeal property. On my site visit I observed No 8 has a small patio area wedged between a side and rear wall leading onto a grassed garden. At the time of my visit much of this patio area was under the cover of a canopy.

The evidence before me indicates that one of the windows on the dormer serves a bathroom, with the remaining two windows serving a bedroom. Whilst the canopy within No 8 restricts views into the patio area, it does not appear to be a permanent fixture, as indicated by the appellant. As a result, when the canopy is not in position, a window on the northwest elevation would overlook the patio area at a short distance. This direct view across the patio area at such a short distance would result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking and harm the privacy of the occupants of No 8.

Moreover, while the window serving this first-floor room is likely to be less used, the sense of being overlooked would be significantly enhanced by the presence of the non-obscured window at this height and short separation distance.

To allow the development without compliance with condition 4 would conflict with the aims of Policies DES6 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan and ESDQ16 of the Thame Neighbourhood Plan. Together, amongst other things, these seek to avoid a loss of privacy by working with any surrounding development constraints. The removal of condition 4 would also conflict with the aims of the Framework, which seeks a high standard of amenity for existing users. The condition which requires the windows in the dormer to be obscure glazed is necessary and reasonable and in all other respects meets the six tests set out in the Framework.

The appellant has stated that the removal of condition 4 would enable much-needed ventilation during the warmer months of the year and also provide a safer route for escape if there were a fire. However, no details have been provided to demonstrate there are no less harmful alternatives to achieve better ventilation or alternative means of escape in the event of fire are not available.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, including the lack of objection from the occupiers of No 8, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.