Appeal 6001003

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 25/00363/FUL for ‘Hip to gable roof enlargement and extension to facilitate front and rear roof dormers. Single storey front extension’ at [site address] granted on 1 August 2025 by Tewkesbury Borough Council is varied by deleting condition No. 4.

Planning permission has been granted for alterations and extensions to [site address] including a loft conversion with a rear flat roof dormer containing a full height bedroom window. This window would incorporate a pair of inward opening doors with fixed windowpanes to either side as well as a Juliet balcony screen (JBS) installed to the exterior of its lower half. The appeal seeks permission to carry out the development without complying with condition No. 4 which requires the JBS to be fitted with obscure glazing. The main issue is whether the obscure glazing to the JBS is reasonable and necessary to protect the living conditions of the occupants of 7-9 [name] and [address], with regard to privacy.

[site address] sits at a slightly oblique angle to the road. It is a bungalow, with centrally positioned box dormers to its front and rear elevations, set within a generous plot including a long back garden. [name] is located to the east and contains 2-storey blocks of properties, with fronts that face north and south onto a centrally located area of open space. To the west is No. 2, which is a bungalow that is positioned broadly parallel to [address].

The planning permission would alter the existing hip roof of No. 1 to form gable ends, with the insertion of 2 small dormers to the front roof pitch, located either side of the ground floor porch extension. The rear dormer would occupy the majority of the rear roof pitch and in addition to the full height bedroom window located to its eastern side, it would include 2 small windows each serving a bathroom.

Due to the orientation of No. 1, views from the full height bedroom window would naturally focus on the dwelling’s rear garden and the views beyond towards [address]. Whilst wider views to the side incorporating the front elevation of Nos. 7-9 would be possible, these would be at an oblique angle, over a noticeable distance and across an area of open space. The private outdoor amenity space to these properties is positioned to the rear and would not be readily visible from the full height bedroom window. Wider views to the other side towards the rear garden at No. 2 would be at an oblique angle over a similar distance and would also be restricted by a detached garage structure along the shared boundary. For these reasons, the full height bedroom window would not result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking on neighbouring properties.

I saw mature vegetation along the site’s boundaries with these properties, which would further screen the wider views from the full height bedroom window, though I found its presence is not a determinative factor in this case.

The widest available views from the full height window would be immediately adjacent to it where it is likely that eye level would be above the JBS, due to its positioning to the lower half of the window. Whilst the fitting of obscure glazing to the JBS would allow light to pass, it would prevent views in or out at this lower level. In the absence of obscure glazing to the JBS, it is likely that views through the lower half of the window would be from further within the bedroom, which would significantly reduce the scope for wider views towards the neighbouring properties located to either side of No. 1.

For similar reasons of intervening distances and oblique angles involved as well as the detached garage’s position to the rear of No. 1, there would be no measurable harm in terms of perceived overlooking from the full height bedroom window. Consequently, the installation of obscure glazing to the JBS would have no meaningful impact.

In conclusion, the disputed condition is neither reasonable nor necessary in the interests of protecting the living conditions of the occupants of 7-9 [name] and [address], with regard to privacy. The development without the disputed condition would accord with Policy RES10 of the Tewksbury Borough Plan 2011- 2031 and Policy SD14 of the [name] 2011-2031. These policies seek to ensure that, amongst other things, that development does not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

The appeal site has been identified as being within the Cotswold Beechwood Special Area of Conservation. The Council has confirmed that the development type does not require mitigation and there is nothing before me to suggest I reach a different conclusion on this matter.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and I vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition.