Appeal 3340496

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension and increase in height of garage roof to accommodate room over with front dormer windows at [site address] in accordance with the application Ref 2023/2491 without compliance with condition numbers 2 and 4 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 2011/0268 dated 31 March 2011 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following list of approved plans 1094-30-04, 05, and 06 received on 28 February 2011, except insofar as they relate to the garage right flank elevation and garage rear view which shall be carried out in strict accordance with the plans entitled ‘S73 Application [site address] ’ submitted with application 2023/2491.

The main issue is whether the disputed condition is reasonable and necessary in the interests of the living conditions of occupiers at No. [address], with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling with sizeable rear garden, flanked to the north-west by the detached dwelling and rear garden of No. [address]. Approved plans for planning permission 2011/0268 show an external door on the first floor rear elevation of the garage at the appeal site, with an associated external landing space and staircase leading to the rear garden. Condition no. 4 was attached to this planning permission requiring the installation of a screen within the approved landing space to preserve the amenities of the occupiers of No. 3. While planning permission 2011/0268 has been implemented, the external door, landing space, and staircase are not present and a full-length window has been installed in their place.

I observed both the rear garden of the appeal site and the habitable room served by the upper floor window that is the subject of this appeal. It is a sizeable window positioned near the boundary shared with the property at No.

However, its main outlook is towards the rear garden of the appeal site, flanked to the north-west by dense boundary planting which serves to largely screen the rear garden at No. 3. Although the Council raises concerns that the boundary planting would be removed, there is nothing substantial before me to suggest that this would be the case.

I observed that some views of the neighbouring rear garden at No. 3 remain possible from the window in question when looking towards the north-west. However, due to the projecting and sloping nature of the dormer feature within which the window is placed, such views are extremely limited from within the associated habitable room and are neither clear nor direct. As such, the window does not result in a level of overlooking, or perception of overlooking, of the neighbouring rear garden at No. 3 to an extent that would be uncommon within a residential setting, or that would unduly impact the use and enjoyment of this garden by the residents of No. 3.

I therefore find the proposal would not conflict with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan 2015 or the [name] and [name] insofar as they seek to ensure that, to protect the amenity of adjoining occupiers, development should be designed to provide privacy. Policies CS10 and CS17 of the [name] 2011 are also referenced in the Decision Notice and, on the information before me, I find no conflict between the proposal and these policies.

My findings above, combined with the fact that the external door, landing space, and staircase approved under planning permission [address], lead me to find that condition no. 4 attached to planning permission 2011/0268 is neither reasonable nor necessary in the interests of the living conditions of occupiers at No. [address], with particular regard to privacy.

As this appeal will result in a new planning permission, it is necessary for me to also amend condition no. 2 of planning permission 2011/0268. This is in the interests of certainty and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the updated plans showing the window in the first-floor rear elevation of the garage.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and the planning permission varied as set out in the formal decision.