Appeal 3367438

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to convert the garage into living accommodation, construction of 2-storey front and rear extensions, rear rooflights and patio to existing dwellinghouse at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/0385/25, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: P000, P007, P008, P009, P010, P011 and P012

The external materials of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

Prior to the first occupation/use of the corresponding rooms, the first floor rear windows serving the master ensuite and dressing rooms and the first floor side windows serving ensuite 1 and bathroom shall be fitted with obscure glass and be non opening up to 1.7 metres above the internal floor level and retained thereafter. Details of the glazing shall be first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to installation which shall be done in accordance with the approved details.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on a) the mix of housing b) the character and appearance of the area; and c) the living conditions of the occupiers of Numbers 58 and [address] with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

Policy H1 of the Epping Forest Local Plan 2023 (LP) seeks, amongst other things, to resist the loss of bungalows on the basis that they can meet accessibility requirements including for older people. The Council consider that bungalows can play an important role because of their potential ease of adaptation. The appeal building is a chalet style dwelling, where all four bedrooms are on the first floor, which is where the fifth bedroom will also be provided.

The need to maintain a supply of smaller dwellings, such as bungalows, is often influenced by typically smaller household sizes within the older demographic groups. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2017 Update explains there is a need for accessible housing for those with such needs, including older people. The Annual Monitoring Report sets out that there has been a gradual erosion of the district’s existing stock of bungalows. No more up to date evidence appears to be available with regard to the need in relation to the size of dwellings in the district and availability of single storey dwellings overall.

The existing dwelling has a stepped access up to the front door and into the rear garden. The chalet style of the building leads to an internal configuration and layout which is akin to that of a typical two storey dwelling. The existing dwelling is not readily accessible and adaptable as a bungalow. In these circumstances, it seems illogical to seek to retain it as a conventionally available bungalow type that Policy H1 seeks to protect. I therefore see no conflict with it and the appeal scheme would not cause unacceptable harm to the mix of housing in the district.

The dismissed appeal at Number [address] related to the replacement of what appears to be a more conventional bungalow with the majority of the accommodation on the ground floor. I do not therefore see sufficient similarities to the appeal scheme such that my findings would change.

The extensions would add to the overall mass and scale of the dwelling although they would be subordinate to the ridge height of the main section. The proposal from the front would significantly alter the appearance through the addition of two protruding front gables. However, the existing chalet style dwelling is of no particular architectural merit, and itself is somewhat incongruous in this part of [address] as it is the only chalet style dwelling in the street scene. There is variation in the immediate area in terms of materials, scale and appearance and dwellings have protruding features on the front elevation including Number 58.

The rear extension would not be readily visible from the public realm. It would extend the full width of the dwelling at ground floor level and would be set in from the sides at first floor level. It would have a depth similar to that of the raised terrace which is closely related to the existing dwelling. Whilst the legibility of the existing rear elevation would be lost, in the context of the neighbouring property at Number 58, where a large two storey rear extension has occurred, the extension would not appear disproportionate or unsympathetic to the dwelling when viewed from the surrounding private spaces.

The proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would therefore comply with Policy DM9 of the LP which requires developments to achieve a high quality of design and relate positively to their locality amongst other things.

Between the appeal site and neighbouring properties mutual overlooking already occurs into the rear gardens given the low boundary fence with Number 60 and the raised terraces.

The proposed rear extension would not project beyond the rear building line of Number 58. It would introduce a first floor window closer to the boundary than currently exists. This window would serve the master ensuite. There are also windows proposed on the first floor side elevations serving the bathroom, ensuite and bedroom 4. Views from the window of bedroom 4 would be primarily towards the side elevation of Number 60 and would be offset from direct views into the neighbouring side window. Any views into the garden would be at an oblique angle such that they would not be harmful to privacy. The existing first floor bathroom window on the rear elevation, proposed as the dressing room, is close to the boundary with Number 60 although it is currently obscurely glazed which mitigates any overlooking impact.

A condition could be imposed requiring the ensuites, bathroom and dressing room windows of the proposal to be obscured in the interests of protecting privacy for the occupants of the appeal site and occupants of the neighbouring property. I am therefore satisfied that the overlooking from the first floor rear and side facing windows would not result in a significant loss of privacy for neighbouring occupiers.

The extension would move marginally beyond the rear projection for the neighbouring dwelling at Number 60. However, it would be set in from the boundary and the design of the extension with a monopitch roof on part of the ground floor, sloping away from this neighbouring property would reduce the perceived mass of development along the boundary minimising the overbearing impact. The proposal would result in some loss of outlook above the low boundary fence from the rear patio of Number 60, although it would not significantly increase the sense of enclosure as there would be open aspects in other directions. The proposal therefore would not be unduly overbearing upon the occupants of this dwelling.

The proposed development would not therefore have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Numbers 58 or 60 in regard to either privacy or outlook. It would thus comply with Policy DM9 of the LP which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that development proposals take account of privacy and amenity for the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Conditions relating to the commencement of development and for works to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans are necessary for enforcement purposes and clarity. In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area, a condition is necessary requiring the external materials of the extensions to match those used in the existing building. A condition relating to the use of obscure glazing to the ensuite, bathroom and dressing room windows are necessary to protect the privacy of neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan and there is nothing sufficiently compelling to indicate a decision otherwise. I therefore recommend that the appeal is allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, subject to the conditions set out.