Appeal 3374892

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Southwark. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Construction of the approved rear roof extension has been completed1. Condition no 1 of the original planning permission specified approved drawings, and condition no 4 requires the windows at the side elevation of the roof extension be 1 LPA ref: 21/AP/3356 obscure glazed. The proposal seeks to reduce the extent of obscure glazing and therefore the proposal would, in effect, modify conditions nos 1 and 4.

Having regard to the above, the main issue is the effect of varying the conditions on the living conditions of the occupants of nos 17A and [address], with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal property is a three-storey mid-terrace dwelling, within a row of dwellings at [address] arranged in compact, rectangular plots with a uniform layout. A similar terrace row at [address] backs onto the modest rear gardens of the [address] dwellings. Rooflights and rear dormers are prevalent in the area, suggesting many surrounding dwellings have similarly been converted and extended to provide a storey of living accommodation within the roof. The appeal property is therefore typical of dwellings in the area, which are tall with a high-density layout that affords views across neighbouring gardens and to the rear elevation of dwellings. Therefore, a degree of overlooking is characteristic of development in this urban area.

Policy P56 of The Southwark Plan 2022 seeks to prevent unacceptable loss of amenity. The policy sets out relevant considerations, including the privacy and outlook of occupiers of both existing and proposed homes, and actual or sense of overlooking or enclosure. The policy contains no specific design standards. The effects of a development on privacy are therefore a matter of planning judgement.

The adjoining building to the southeast is of similar form and appearance to the appeal property but comprises two flats, with no 17A at the ground floor and no 17B at the first and second floors. The rear elevation of nos 17A & B includes windows at each of its three storeys. [name] have not been provided full details of the layout, written representations indicate these windows serve habitable rooms.

In addition, no 17A has a small, rear garden. This is overlooked by rear-facing windows at no 17B. The garden is also visible from the appeal property’s rear-facing windows at an oblique angle when looking to the side of the outrigger. Due to the density of development, the garden would also be visible in more distant and indirect views from other dwellings at [address] and [address], and thus experiences existing overlooking.

The appeal property’s roof extension has both rear-facing and side-facing windows, which meet to form a corner window. The side elevation windows are oriented toward the shared boundary and nos 17A & B’s outrigger. However, the side-facing windows are fitted with obscuring film which wholly prevents outlook.

The proposal seeks to reduce by 50% the area of obscure-glazing at the side-facing section of the corner window. The diagram at figure 4 of the Planning Statement illustrates the field of view which would be available from the corner window, which would span the rear garden and outrigger of nos 17A & B.

However, the indicative viewpoint is set back from the glazing with the effect of truncating the viewing angle from the corner window. Photographs from the vantage point of the neighbour’s window suggest there would be a direct line of sight between the corner window and nos 17A & B’s rear elevation windows which, together with the short separation distance, would create opportunities for overlooking of nos 17A & B’s rear-facing rooms.

The appellant asserts that views toward existing windows would require a person position themselves in a way that would not amount to usual behaviour. However, there is unencumbered access to the window, and I have no mechanism to control how the space would be used or laid out with furniture, such as seating. Therefore, I cannot be certain that overlooking would not normally occur.

As discussed, no 17A’s garden is visible from existing dwellings, including the appeal property and from flat no 17B, above. However, whilst the garden experiences existing overlooking, it does not automatically follow that new opportunities for overlooking are without harm. The proposal would provide a clear-glazed window oriented directly toward the garden and close to the shared boundary. The proposal would therefore create additional opportunities for overlooking which would further erode the privacy of users of the garden.

Furthermore, due to its position and proximity to the shared boundary, the corner window would appear prominent from the rear windows and garden at nos 17A & [name] of a section of obscure glazing would therefore create a perception of being overlooked for nos 17A & B’s occupants.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a scheme at [address] for rear roof extension works and rooflights2. The assessment in the delegated report concludes the proposal would not result in any additional overlooking or loss of privacy to a greater extent than its existing windows. The assessment makes no reference to the presence of any side-facing windows, and therefore the scheme does not appear comparable to the appeal proposal.

For the reasons set out above, the proposed variation of conditions would reduce the extent of obscured glazing from the corner window. This would introduce new opportunities for overlooking of rear windows and the garden at neighbouring dwellings, nos 17A & [name] acknowledging that a degree of overlooking is typical in the area, the proposal would unacceptably increase both actual overlooking and a sense of overlooking, resulting in a noticeable and harmful loss of privacy for nos 17A & B’s occupants. Consequently, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupants of nos 17A and [address].

The proposal would conflict with Policy P56 of The Southwark Plan 2022 which indicates that development which causes an unacceptable loss of amenity to present or future occupiers or users should not be permitted.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given the appeal should be dismissed.