Appeal 3370233

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has advised that a condition was imposed both on the original planning permission for the overall residential development ( Condition 15 of Ref: PLAN/2011/1062) and the subsequent permission granted which amended the original permission in respect of parking (Condition 9 of Ref: PLAN/2013/0558) to prevent the insertion of windows, dormer windows and other openings in the east elevation including the roof of the front tier of development.

I have noted the names of the Appellants as confirmed at the appeal stage.

The main issues in this appeal are: a) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing property and on the local area, and b) the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of surrounding neighbours, with particular regard to overlooking and loss of privacy.

The appeal property is a modern, two storey mid terrace property with a loft room extending the full depth of the property and lit by two central rooflights. The appeal property has a gable façade to the front and to the rear. Properties in [address] and the adjoining [address] primarily comprise short terraces of 2 storey dwellings, all of similar, modest scale and proportions.

The proposal would seek to introduce a large, full length window at second floor level at the rear to provide more light and an outlook to the rear for the loft room. However, its proposed size compared with the existing windows in the property would result in the property appearing unbalanced with a top heavy and visually incompatible alteration to the window arrangement. The proposed window would not respect the proportions of the existing property in terms of the relationship between windows and solid walls and would appear overly large in relation to the modest scale of the property.

The proposed window would be seen in street scene views from a number of places, particularly along [address] to the east of the appeal property. Its overly large form and extent of glazing at high level would detract from the uniformity of the design of the terrace and the modest scale and proportions of the terrace and surrounding terraces. It would appear visually incongruous in such views.

I therefore conclude that the proposed insertion of a window at second floor level, as proposed, would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area. This would conflict with Policies CS21 and CS24 of the [name] 2012 ([name]) the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Design 2015 ([name]) and the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and in particular Section 12, all of which amongst other matters, seek a high quality of design which respects the local context.

From the existing rear facing, first floor bedroom window of the appeal property, there are views towards the rear gardens of the adjoining properties at Nos 1 and [address] and towards the conservatory and rear garden of No [address] which has a side boundary to the rear boundary of the appeal property. Some overlooking over neighbouring properties is not unusual in suburban situations.

However, the introduction of the proposed window at second floor level together with the extent of proposed glazing, would significantly increase the extent of overlooking of the adjoining properties, and particularly of the property and rear garden at [address]. It would potentially also provide views towards and over more rear gardens in the local area. This would result in a materially greater loss of privacy for the immediate adjoining neighbours and potentially for others close by; this would materially harm their living conditions.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would result in material harm to the living conditions of surrounding neighbours, with particular regard to overlooking and loss of privacy. This would conflict with Policy CS21 of the [name], the [name] and the Supplementary Planning Document: Outlook, [name] and Daylight 2022, as well as the Framework and in particular paragraph 135, all of which amongst other matters seek a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.

Were no other matters of concern and planning permission were to be granted I consider that this harm I have found to the living conditions of surrounding neighbours could be overcome through the imposition of a condition to require the lower panes of glazing to be in obscure glass and non-openable. However, this would not overcome or outweigh the harm I have concluded to the character and appearance of the existing property and to the local area.

I have taken into account the letters of support received from the neighbouring residents. However, the permission if granted would endure for future residents and does not persuade me to a different conclusion.

There are references in the Appellants’ appeal statement to the option of undertaking minor amendments to the size and design of the proposed window. However, except in so far as a matter of concern could be addressed by the imposition of a condition to overcome the harm identified, I am required to determine the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

The Council has provided me with information regarding a similar proposal at No [address], that the Council has refused permission. However, my assessment has related solely to the appeal before me.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including in representations, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.