Appeal 3354341

The appeal is allowed, and the planning permission [name]/2024/01707/MINFHO, for the development described above at [site address] , [site address] [postcode] , granted on 23 October 2024 by Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, is varied by deleting Condition 4.

The development comprises a scheme of primarily internal alterations to No [site address] , to divide one existing bedroom into two, plus the creation of a new window in the side elevation. The disputed condition requires that the new window be obscurely glazed, and that it be non-opening below eye level.

By the time of my visit, the scheme had been largely completed. As far as I am aware, the works carried out appear to accord with the approved plans, except that the new window is currently glazed with clear glass.

The new window in question is at first floor level and faces the adjoining property, No [address], at a distance of just under one metre from the boundary. Policy P14 of the Local Plan1 requires all developments to respect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, and the Council’s design guidance2 discourages side-facing windows, for reasons of protecting neighbours’ privacy, 1 The Solihull Local Plan, adopted December 2013 2 [name] – Supplementary Planning Document, dated February 2010

In the present case however, I saw on my visit that the main view from the new window is directed towards the gable end of No 65’s projecting garage. This section of wall is windowless. Oblique views towards the glazed conservatory, and a hallway, are largely obscured by the existing garage. The only window in No 65 which is potentially overlooked from the new window is one which serves the front porch, which is not a habitable room. Although the conservatory roof is obliquely visible, the ribbed plastic material from which this is made does not appear to be transparent. From my observations therefore, in no case does the new window at the appeal property afford window-to-window views affecting privacy within the adjoining property.

Externally, the new window does provide some potential for views over No 65’s rear garden. However, such views are very oblique, and are available only from one corner of the new bedroom 5. Whereas, as I saw during my visit, the whole of the garden in question is already clearly visible, from the appeal property’s existing rear-facing windows, in bedrooms Nos 1 and 4. Moreover, in the case of bedroom 4 in particular, this existing view is both closer and more direct, and is visible from a larger part of that room, compared to the view from the new window. In these circumstances, no loss of privacy would be suffered by the neighbouring occupiers in the use of their rear garden.

Consequently, having regard to all these matters, I am satisfied that the retention of the implemented development in its present form, including the existing clear glazing in the new window, would have no significant adverse effects on the privacy of the occupants of No [address], or indeed any other property. In this regard, despite the minor departure from the relevant design guidance, I find no conflict with the aims of Policy P14.

I therefore conclude that Condition 4 of the planning permission granted by the Council is unnecessary. As such, the condition fails to meet the tests for planning conditions in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework. It follows that the condition should be deleted. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed.