Appeal 6000184

The appeal is dismissed.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated in December 2024, during the consideration of this appeal. Insofar as is directly relevant to the appeal, there are no substantive changes and no parties have been prejudiced as a result.

At the time of my site visit works had commenced at the appeal site. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of clarity, I have based my decision on the submitted plans.

In 2023 planning permission was granted, subject to a number of conditions, for demolition of existing building and the erection of 2 semi-detached houses with associated landscaping, parking, and refuse/cycle storage.

The current proposal seeks to vary conditions U0154481 and U0154491 which were attached to the 2023 permission to facilitate changes to the approved scheme including the omission of solar panels, amendments to internal arrangements, amended fenestration on all elevations and roof including changes to design, position and number of windows, amended dormer shape and size, revised roofline to include guttering, omitted arched window heads for straight soldier course on front and rear central windows, omitted render for brick on front elevation bay windows, omitted rear elevation railings for glazed balustrade.

However, the Council refused the application and consider the conditions remain necessary. The Council state that the proposed amended scheme, by reason of its siting, design and layout with first and second floor habitable rooms having windows that are necessarily secured as obscure glazed/non-opening to a minimum 1.7m above finished floor level, would result in poor living conditions for future occupiers.

Consequently, the main issue in this appeal is whether conditions U0154481 and U0154491 are reasonable and necessary having regard to the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed dwellings with particular regard to outlook.

The plans permitted as part of the planning permission in dispute show that the front, first- and second-floor, rooms of the properties would be bathrooms. The revised layout before me indicates that the first-floor front rooms of both properties would be bedrooms. These bedrooms would have three windows, forming part of a projecting bay, at the front of the property. The second-floor rooms to the front of the properties are shown as a dressing room/working from home office space. These rooms each have a single window to the front elevation and a rooflight above.

This appeal follows a previous scheme, dismissed on appeal1, with a similar layout to the scheme which is before me as part of this appeal. During the previous appeal the Inspector held that, due to the separation distances, the proposed building would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking and loss of privacy at the neighbouring rear garden spaces. In order to address this issue, the windows in the front elevation of the proposed bedrooms and dressing rooms/offices would be obscure glazed and non-opening to around 1.7m above finished floor level.

The obscure glazed windows would be the only windows serving the first-floor bedrooms. Though the top part of the windows would be clear and would afford some degree of outlook this would be limited and would be above the eye level of 1 APP/L5810/W/22/3297500 most people. Similarly, the second-floor rooms would have a single, partially obscure glazed window which would significantly restrict the outlook from these rooms. These rooms would also have an additional skylight; however, the skylight would afford only very high-level views towards the sky and would not provide any meaningful outlook.

The obscure glazing proposed would not afford future occupants with the opportunity to benefit from a reasonable view of their surroundings whilst in the affected spaces. Such views contribute to a sense of openness, surveillance and facilitate a sense of connection with the external environment. The plans indicate that the first-floor rooms would be bedrooms and the second-floor would be dressing rooms/home working spaces. Whilst these layouts are subject to change, habitable spaces such as these are well-used within any dwelling, particularly with the increase in the numbers of people who now work from home and require home offices. Increasing proportions of time are now spent in rooms such as these. Consequently, the use of these proportions of obscure glazing within habitable rooms would fail to provide an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers in this regard.

Indeed, the previous Inspector considered whether it would be reasonable to require the front bedroom windows to be obscure glazed in order to make the development which was before him acceptable. The Inspector concluded that in terms of the effect on the living conditions of future residents of the scheme with regards to outlook, it would not be suitable to include obscured glazing for those habitable rooms. Though the exact details of the obscure glazing proposed in each case was different, as I have set out above, I am not persuaded on the basis of the evidence before me to depart from the previous Inspector’s findings.

I note the appellant’s suggestion that the internal layout of the property could be changed in future. Be that as it may, the same considerations apply to many planning permissions and this is not a justification for allowing sub-optimal development. Furthermore, I consider that the works required to move a bathroom are fairly significant and, in my view, would be unlikely to occur readily.

The appellant suggests that other properties in the area have had similar obscure glazed windows approved. However, the existence of other examples is not sufficient reason to justify the grant of planning permission; each case must be determined on its own merits based on the specific circumstances at each site. These circumstances will rarely, if ever, be identical.

I accept that in other ways the proposal would meet the requirements of the adopted development plan for the area and that the overall standard of accommodation which would be provided would generally be high. This consideration, however, is not sufficient to outweigh the harm which would be caused in respect of the rooms which would not provide the same high standard of amenity.

For the reasons set out above I consider that conditions U0154481 and U0154491 are reasonable and necessary having regard to the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the proposed dwellings with particular regard to outlook. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to Policy LP8 of the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames Local Plan, July 2018 (LP) which states that all development will be required to protect the amenity and living conditions of occupants of new, existing, adjoining and neighbouring properties.

The proposal would also fail to accord with Policy D6 of the London Plan, 2021 which sets out that housing development should be of high quality design and provide adequately-sized rooms with comfortable and functional layouts which are fit for purpose and meet the needs of Londoners.

The proposal would also be at odds with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document - Residential Development Standards, March 2010 which promotes high quality design and states that in assessing good design the Council will consider the proposed new living conditions, outlook and privacy and the effect on neighbours’ amenity.

There would also be a failure to conform with the National Planning Policy Framework which states that developments should create a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal is contrary to the development plan. There are no material considerations that indicate that permission should be granted. Therefore, taking all other matters raised into account, the appeal is dismissed.