Appeal 3364220

The appeal is dismissed.

Two site visits were undertaken. The first to view the appeal property from Grassmere. A second visit was arranged following the first, to view Grassmere from the appeal property. Both parties were informed of both visits.

Planning permission was granted for a proposal including a dormer window subject to the condition which required it be obscurely glazed and non-opening with the Council giving reasons for this relating to the privacy of people living nearby1. An application was submitted for the removal of the condition to enable the window to be opened fully for the purposes of cleaning. The application was refused by the Council for the same reasons2.

The main issue is therefore whether condition 4 is necessary, if so whether the proposed variation would be necessary and reasonable having regard to the test on imposing conditions set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 1 Council reference PL/2023/02794 2 Council reference PL/2024/09070

The appeal property ‘Walhampton’ comprises a detached residential property situated at the intersection of [site address] and [name]. Immediately to the north west of the property is Grassmere, a detached dwelling with a garden on rising land to the rear of the property.

The proposal is to vary condition 4 of planning permission PL/2023/02794 to allow the dormer window on the north west elevation (which serves a bedroom) to be opened for cleaning purposes only. The condition currently restricts the lower casement of the window to being obscure glazed and fixed shut.

Overlooking from the bottom casement at Walhampton is not possible with the window shut due to the presence of obscure glazing. Views of the rear garden of Grassmere are possible through the top casement, but only for those able to achieve a sufficiently high vantage point. These views give a good indication of the views that would be more easily achieved were it possible to open the window fully. Photographs provided by the appellant illustrate this.

The available views are variable, as part of the garden is obscured by Grassmere’s garage and porch. However, the rising nature of the land means that people standing in the garden are more likely to be visible than those sitting down and those at the rear more likely to be seen than those close to the garage. The potential harm to amenity is not immediately apparent from Walhampton due to the topography of the garden.

[name] the effect of the dormer window is more pronounced, with the window visible from the majority of the garden when stood up, its presence giving the perception of being surveyed. Notwithstanding this, the obscure glazing does provide effective mitigation against overlooking at present with the window closed. For people of average height, views towards Grassmere from Walhampton are currently difficult to achieve.

If the lower casement were openable, the adverse impact would be significant. Whilst the views from Walhampton may be variable, I consider that the increased perception of surveillance would be harmful to the amenities of the occupiers of Grassmere, impacting their ability to use and enjoy their private amenity space.

I note that the appellant has received advice about the difficulties of cleaning the present window. However, this concern is not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified. Furthermore, additional justification has been provided by the appellant after the submission of the appeal stating that the window is required as a means of escape in the event of a fire. No reason has been given as to why the dormer window on the opposite elevation is unsuitable for this purpose. It is also assumed that the newly constructed additions meet latest building regulation standards, which address fire safety. For these reasons I give this limited weight.

Consequently, I find conflict with policy 57 of the [name] (CS) which requires proposals to have regard to the compatibility of adjoining buildings and uses, ensuring that appropriate levels of amenity are achievable and para. 135 of the Framework which seeks to promote a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. I also conclude that it would be unreasonable to specify matters such as the number of times the window could be cleaned and the duration that the window could be left open for cleaning because this would be too onerous and impractical to monitor. Thus, any replacement condition which allowed the window to be fully openable only for the purposes of cleaning would not meet the relevant tests for the imposition of planning conditions because it would imprecise and unenforceable.

Thus, condition 4 is necessary, and the proposed variation would not meet the tests on imposing conditions set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework.

For these reasons, having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.