Appeal 3358803

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for addition of first floor level to existing bungalow, single storey front extension and single storey rear extension, change to external materials, addition of solar panels, fenestration alterations and removal of chimney (revision of 21/01044/HOUSE) at [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the application [name]/MAL/24/00557 without compliance with the condition No.3 previously imposed on the planning permission Ref 23/00789/HOUSE dated 18 October 2023, but subject to the following condition:

The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans reference Nos.23-071-004_[name], 23-071-006, and 23-071-007_[name] ,

The development permitted under reference No. 23/00789/HOUSE is in the process of being completed without compliance with condition No.3. The development so far completed has clear glazing in the subject windows, and so does not comply with condition 3.

There is a single issue in this case: whether the removal of condition 3 from the permission, and the retention of the rooflights on the north facing roof slope in clear glazing and without limit to the degree of opening, would be harmful to neighbouring occupiers due to overlooking and a loss of privacy

The appeal site is located on the western side of [address] at its junction with [address] within [site address] . The surrounding area is residential, with dwellings of varying design. Planning permission was granted for the addition at first floor level to the existing bungalow, single storey front extension and single storey rear extension, change to external materials, addition of solar panels, fenestration alterations and removal of chimney under reference 23/00789/HOUSE which was a revision of 21/01044/HOUSE (allowed on appeal APP/X1545/D/21/3288426). The appeal dwelling is a detached house, appearing as a 2-storey house at the front and a chalet bungalow to the rear.

The nearest neighbours that are considered in the officer’s report are No.[address] to the west and No.[address] to the north. Number [address] is also mentioned since there was an objection made in respect of that property. As a result of what I saw at my site visit, there is no other neighbouring property that would be affected by the retention of the subject rooflights with clear glazing in their present position.

Number 33 is a detached 2-storey house, with its long axis parallel with [address], whilst the appeal dwelling has its long axis parallel to [address]. As a result, the subject rooflights at the rear of No.31 are some 3m to 4m behind the rear elevation of No.33. The result is that any view out of these rooflights is of the rear part of the garden of No.33, and at an oblique angle.

At my site visit, although the internal work to the appeal property is not yet complete, I was able to access the first floor to see for myself the view to the north from the subject rooflights. I found that the bottom of the rooflights is about 1.6m above internal floor level, some 0.1m lower than the level below which Condition 3 requires the windows to be glazed with opaque glass and of a non-openable design. I came to the conclusion that, as far as No.33 is concerned, due to the oblique angle of view and the rear part of the garden that is seen, this difference between the position required by condition 3 and the position occupied by the rooflights does not justify retention of the condition. In reaching this conclusion, I have also taken account of the fact that in a row of 2-storey houses it is normal for first-floor windows to have a reasonably clear view over a large part of the neighbours’ gardens.

As for No.[address], as noted in the officer’s report, the subject rooflights would be 14m from this dwelling. Due to the size and position, and being flush with the roofslope, the rooflights would result in a very limited loss of privacy for the occupiers of this neighbouring property, such that condition 3 is not necessary. In respect of No.[address], I consider that the distance between the appeal dwelling and that house is such that there is no material overlooking that would justify dismissing this appeal.

For the reasons that I have set out, I will allow the appeal.

The council has suggested that in the event of the appeal being allowed, there should be 3 conditions imposed: the standard time limit for the start of development, that the development should have external surfaces matching the existing building, and that the development should be in accordance with the plans.

The first of these is not necessary since the appeal development has already ‘started’. Nor is the second as the development has been built with materials that are not criticised in the refusal notice. As to the third suggested condition, there may be some aspect of the development that is not yet complete so that it would be sensible for me to re-impose the condition requiring it to be completed in accordance with the plans. I will therefore include that condition on the permission that I grant to ensure satisfactory completion of the development.