Appeal 6001201

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion with internal alterations and remodel at [site address] , Bournemouth [postcode] in accordance with the application [name]/25/01923/CONDR and plan numbers LMA.24.013-200B, LMA.24.13-250B, LMA.24.013-251B, LMA.24.013- 255 and LMA.24.013-002C, without compliance with condition numbers 1, 2 and 3 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 7-2024-29358 dated 22 April 2025 and subject to the following conditions:

The windows in the dormers on the western and eastern side elevations serving the bathroom, en-suite bathroom and stairway shall be retained in perpetuity with obscure glazing and fixed shut to a height of 1.7 metres above the finished floor level of the room.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be first occupied unless details of a privacy screen of at least 1.8m in height to be erected along the eastern side of the raised terrace as shown on the approved plans have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The screen shall be erected in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted and the screen shall thereafter be retained and maintained.

The application form states that the development commenced on 4 April 2025. I saw during my visit that the works, including the dormers, are almost completed and appear to be in accordance with the plans before me. The development has been undertaken and therefore, this appeal is being considered under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Whilst the description of development only relates to an increase to the size of the dormers, the amended plans indicate a range of further alterations. The Council’s officer report is silent on this matter, but the application form is clear that all alterations are being sought by this submission. As the Council has only raised concerns with respect to the dormers, it appears that this is the only area of dispute. Therefore, despite the Council being silent on this issue, I have considered all the proposed changes as shown on the plans.

Planning permission was granted on appeal (reference APP/V1260/D/25/3361466) for a loft conversion with internal alterations and remodel. The appellant seeks permission for an amended design that includes larger dormers, changes to the external finishes, two new ground floor windows, changes to the ground floor layout and removal of a recessed balcony to the master bedroom to the rear and its replacement with a large window.

The main issues are the effect that varying condition 3 would have on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address] (No 80), with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

The appeal property contains a detached bungalow within a predominantly residential area. The land levels drop from the front to the rear and from No 80 to No [address] (No 76). The property has a front projecting gable and has been largely rendered with timber cladding feature to the front elevation.

The surrounding area comprises a broad mix of mainly detached properties, including bungalows and chalet dwellings as well as two storey houses. Flat roofed dormers are seen on several properties within the street scene and are located to the front and side of the properties. Consequently, dormers form part of the character and appearance of the local area.

The loft space has been converted into habitable accommodation with the addition of two side dormers with windows. The dormers have increased in size from that previously approved and have stepped further down the roof slope by 36cm. They are also 12cm higher when compared to the previous planning permission. The Council dispute the size increase asserted by the appellant and consider that the projection of the dormers has increased by around 42cm down the roof slope with the guttering extending an extra 60cm beyond that previously approved.

Nonetheless, the larger dormers are set well in from the sides of the roof as well as remaining set down from the ridge. Consequently, despite being larger than the dormers which were previously approved, they do not appear over dominant in relation to both the roof form and to the overall scale and massing of the property.

Accordingly, the size, bulk and siting of the dormers would not result in an out of keeping or unsympathetic addition that would detract from the character and appearance of the area.

The other amendments, which have been outlined above and have also been completed, have no adverse effect on the design of the dwelling which is well designed and of a high quality and respect the site and its surroundings.

Consequently, the development does not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan Core Strategy (October 2012) in relation to character and appearance. This policy seeks high quality design that through its scale, density, layout, siting, character, and appearance is designed to respect the site and its surroundings.

The dormers, as approved, had side facing windows. Those windows located adjacent to No 80 serve a bedroom and two bathrooms. Adjacent to No 76, the side facing window serves a stairwell. The internal layout at first floor has been undertaken in accordance with the previously approved plans and the windows continue to serve the rooms identified.

The larger dormers, which have been constructed, have brought the windows around 36cm closer to No 80 than were previously approved. Also, in accordance with the previous permission, the windows within the dormers serving the bathroom, en-suite and stairwell have been fitted with obscure glazing. The obscure glazing has also been fitted in the bedroom window, which was not a requirement of the previous planning permission.

Whilst the windows within the dormer are slightly closer to Number 80, their location and size within the dormer have not changed between that constructed on site and the previous approval. The windows have also been obscurely glazed in accordance with the previous permission. Consequently, as a result, there would be no further loss of privacy to the front garden and existing windows of No 80 than that previously granted.

The Council’s officer report refers to the dormers being significantly overbearing and dominant when viewed from the neighbouring property. However, the increase in the size of the dormers is of negligible effect and has not resulted in any greater overbearing or dominant effect to the neighbouring property than the previously approved dormers. The dormer is highly visible from the adjacent first floor window at No 80. This would have been the case had the dormer been built as approved.

I note the objections raised by neighbouring occupiers, including those at No 80, regarding loss of privacy. The dormers have increased in size by around 36cm and have moved slightly closer to the neighbouring properties. However, due to the distance between the dormers and the existing neighbouring windows alongside their position and orientation, I am satisfied that this has not resulted in any further impact on outlook to the neighbouring occupiers at No 80.

Two new windows have been provided in the west elevation at ground floor. These would provide natural light to the living room through the west facing side elevation. As these are at ground floor and the adjacent property at number 80 sits at a higher level than the appeal property, I am satisfied that their inclusion would not result in a loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupier. Furthermore, the removal of the recessed balcony to the main bedroom, and its replacement with a full height window to the rear of the property, would have no further loss of privacy to the rear gardens of Number 76 or Number 80 for the adjacent occupiers than that previously granted.

Consequently, the proposal would not materially affect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers particularly with respect to privacy and outlook. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan Core Strategy (October 2012) in relation to residential amenity. This policy seeks development to provide a high standard of amenity.

Whilst the works undertaken are not in accordance with the previous permission, the difference between the approved scheme and this proposed scheme is clearly the subject of the proposal and the appeal before me. The retrospective nature of the scheme does not, in itself, provide a strong reason to resist the proposal which has been assessed on its own merits based on the specific evidence before me.

By allowing this appeal a new planning permission is created. The Planning Practice Guidance indicates that, to assist with clarity, decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73A should also repeat the relevant conditions from the original planning permission, unless they have already been discharged.

As the development has already been primarily completed, it is not necessary to impose conditions relating to approved plans or materials. It is also not necessary to impose a time limit condition.

As obscure glazing has been fitted to the windows within the dormers as required by the original permission, it is necessary to modify the obscure glazing condition to ensure that the windows remain obscurely glazed in perpetuity. However, it is not necessary to condition that the obscure glazing installed to the bedroom window adjacent to No 80, is retained in perpetuity. This is because it was not considered necessary in the original planning permission to be installed and no loss of privacy has been found because of the larger dormers.

Whilst the appellant has advised that details are before the Council in relation to the terrace privacy screening, the details are not before me, and it is uncertain if the details have been agreed. Consequently, it is necessary to reimpose the condition and as the dwelling appears to be currently unoccupied, a ‘prior to occupation’ trigger would remain reasonable.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will grant a new planning permission with a substituted obscure glazing condition and restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect. [planning inspector] (INSPECTOR)