Appeal 3353812

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to privacy.

The proposed development would replace the existing garage which is located in front of the house. It would be larger, with accommodation within the roof space served by two dormer windows to the southern roof slope.

While the frontages of properties do not have the same level of privacy as the rear, they are generally oriented to face towards the road, and consequently, the outlook is forward with only obscure angle views over the neighbour’s front garden. The properties along [site address] follow this form and are set some distance back from the road with landscaping to the front boundaries. Therefore, any sense of reduced privacy derived from passersby in the public realm or mutual overlooking from neighbours is unlikely to be significant.

Located at a corner, the appeal property and its immediate neighbours have splayed plots which are narrower towards the front. Both [site address] and [address] have garages to the front, although these are not a common feature along the road, and they are both single-storey buildings.

The proposed garage in this forward position with an increased height and massing would be orientated towards the neighbour. This would introduce a direct sightline between the proposed dormer windows and the existing windows to the front elevation of [address].

The Elmbridge Local Plan: Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) refers to a notional degree of visual privacy being achieved through a distance of about 22m. While this is referenced in relation to rear to rear elevations, there would be intervisibility between windows serving habitable rooms with the separation substantially below that distance.

There is an existing high hedge along the shared boundary, which provides screening; however, this is not a permanent structure and is not planted within the appeal site. As such, I agree with the Council that its retention cannot be relied upon, and as the windows are to the first floor, they are positioned higher than standard boundary treatments.

In conclusion, the proposed development would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the [address] through overlooking. Therefore, the proposal would fail to accord with policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan – Development Management Plan 2015 and the SPD. Together and amongst other things, these seek that all development achieves high-quality design having regard to the prevailing pattern of development, separation distances, and protects the amenity of adjoining occupiers, including privacy.

I accept that localities evolve over time, and as I observed on my site visit, many of the properties, including the appeal property, have accommodated extensions and alterations. The Council found that the proposal would be appropriate for the character of the area. Nonetheless, it is the positioning of the windows and the relationship with the neighbouring property which makes the design unacceptable.

For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed.