Appeal 6000115

Words that do not describe acts of development have been omitted from the description of the proposal in the banner.

The main parties agree that the appeal scheme would not conflict with the requirements and conditions at AA.1 and AA.2 (2) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO. I have no reason to find otherwise and proceed accordingly. The dispute before me centres on whether prior approval may be granted for the proposed development, under the provisions of Article 3(1) of the GPDO, with particular regard to the conditions at AA.2. (3) (a) (i) and AA.2. (3) (a) (ii) of Schedule 2, Part 1 of this same Order.

I have had regard to the cited development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework, but only insofar as they may be material considerations in the assessment of the prior approval matters.

There are several neighbouring dwellings and associated gardens adjacent to the appeal site. These form part of the site’s setting and context, which is important to the consideration of this issue.

When viewed from [address], the house on the appeal site is seen in the context of the neighbouring low and fairly modest single-storey dwelling at [address] to its north, and the substantially larger and taller houses at Greet and Keruing to its south. These larger houses have been built on higher land than both the appeal site and [address]. As such, and albeit that the height and bulk of the dwelling on the appeal site would be increased, in visual terms, this dwelling would continue to act as a link that helps to bridge the differences between the neighbouring houses. That being the case, the external appearance of the resultant dwelling would not be incongruous with the development around it, and it would not detract from the visual quality of the area. In these respects, the development would comply with the related policies cited in the decision notice.

For these reasons, the development would not cause harm to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse. Issue – effect on the amenity of Roselands and Keruing with particular regard to outlook and privacy

The house at Cerises is parallel to much of the width of the sizable rear garden at Keruing. Nevertheless, from both the rear garden and rear garden-facing windows of the house, the occupiers of Keruing have a fairly open outlook over and above their rear garden and nearby development - including the house at Cerises.

If the appeal scheme were implemented, the upper part of a side wall and the roof of the house on the appeal site would be visible above the tall, close-boarded fence between it and Keruing. However, the house at Cerises is several metres from this shared boundary, and a considerably further distance from the house at Keruing. Moreover, the roof of the host dwelling would continue to slope up and away from the shared boundary with Keruing. Consequently, the dwelling on the appeal site would not be harmfully dominant from this neighbouring property, and the occupiers of Keruing would continue to retain a reasonable outlook from within their house and rear garden.

There is a tall and well-established hedgerow in the rear garden of Roselands that is adjacent to the shared boundary between this property and the appeal site. At the time of my site visit, this, together with a nearby large oak tree that is also in the garden of Roselands, prevented clear views from the existing first-floor rear windows in Cerises over the rear garden of this neighbouring property. While this screening effect is likely to be less when deciduous plants are not in leaf, even then, I do not doubt that this hedge and tree provide a reasonable level of privacy in the rear garden of Roselands.

Additional windows in the rear of the house would address the far end of Roseland's large rear garden. However, these windows would be several metres back from the shared boundary with this neighbouring property, and the second-floor window would be obscurely glazed. Furthermore, and even though a first-floor window would be a little closer to this neighbouring rear garden than the existing first-floor windows, this window would address the hedge and the roof of the summer house in the garden beyond. For these reasons, the development would not result in a material or harmful loss of privacy in the garden of Roselands. Nevertheless, and to ensure no such harm would arise in the future, it is necessary to impose a condition preventing any windows or doors in the rear elevation of the dwelling at second-floor level and above, from being clear glazed or opening beneath a certain height.

Consequently, and in respect of this issue, the development would not conflict with the development plan policies cited on the decision notice or the Framework.

I understand that the additional windows would be further from the site’s boundary with Roselands than was the case in the development considered in appeal ref: APP/G5180/D/23/3332740. That being the case, this previous scheme was materially different from that subject of this appeal. Consequently, this earlier appeal decision does not lead me away from my own findings.

For the reasons given, the development would not harm the amenity of amenity of Roselands or Keruing, with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

Planning permission would be required for the insertion of windows in the side of the dwelling at first-floor level or above. Moreover, any disruption during construction works is likely to be small and for a short period of time. Given my findings on the first issue in this decision letter, the development would not harm the setting or the enjoyment of users of the nearby [address].

Even if the development were to adversely affect the financial value of neighbouring properties, that is not a matter that may be considered in the assessment of this scheme for prior approval.

I understand that there are local residents who share a protected characteristic for the purposes of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which in this case is disability. I have therefore had due regard to the PSED contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. However, while appreciating the paramount importance of ensuring the well-being of those local residents with a protected characteristic, it does not automatically follow from the PSED that the appeal should fail.

I have found that the development would not materially or harmfully change the level of privacy in the rear garden of Roselands. As such, and in respect of this matter, it would not prevent the occupiers of that property from gaining pleasure from sitting out in their garden. Allowing this appeal would therefore be consistent with my PSED duty.

For the reasons given above, and because nothing indicates a decision otherwise, the appeal should be allowed and prior approval granted.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), any windows or doors that are formed in the west facing elevation of the dwelling at second floor level and above, shall be obscure glazed, and no part of that glazing that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Reason: Protect the amenity of Roselands