Appeal 6001847

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor extension to existing bungalow, windows sited to front and rear, side windows obscure and top opening on side at Bokhara, [site address] , Crowthorne, Berkshire [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 25/00345/FUL, subject to the conditions set out within the schedule of conditions attached to this

The description of proposed works as set out within the planning application form stipulates that the scheme is for a first floor extension to the existing bungalow “following refusal for overlooking”. I understand that the proposal follows the previous refusal to grant [name] under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO), however “following refusal for overlooking” in itself does not constitute development and therefore I have omitted reference to it from the banner heading and my decision above.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the outlook of neighbouring occupiers.

The appeal site comprises a modest bungalow in a semi-backland location albeit with the rear garden boundary abutting a vegetative belt bordering [address]. The predominant building type immediately surrounding the site is of single storey form, including “The Hollies” to the west and bungalows situated within [address] to the east.

The proposal would see the addition of a complete first floor over the existing bungalow in deviance to this prevailing character. However, I note that my colleague when determining the GPDO appeal (Ref. APP/R0335/W/25/3370140) for a not too dissimilar design, concluded that the wider area is characterised by an eclectic mix of buildings that vary in height, age and architectural style, including a range of materials, detailing and window arrangements. Consequently, whilst they concluded that a two storey dwelling on the appeal site would exceed the height of the neighbouring properties to either side, the overall design would reflect the simple, traditional pitch roof design of the existing bungalow. Therefore they opined that the proposed development would not result in harm to the external appearance of the host property or to the character and appearance of its immediate surroundings; and I have been given no substantive reason to come to a different conclusion on this.

There exists a good degree of evergreen vegetation located within the curtilage of The Hollies which provides reasonable screening from within that neighbouring property. The 2no bungalows most affected by the proposal within [address] are nos 11 and 12. The southernmost (no12) is largely screened by holly, laurel and other evergreen shrubs and, as demonstrated within the Council’s Officer report, the nearest directly facing bedroom window of that property is around 11.45m from the rear elevation of Bokhara. The diagrams within paragraph 9.25 of that report also highlight that a 25° line taken from the centre of that bedroom window would not be conflicted by the upward extension of the appeal dwelling. Consequently, as well as adequate sunlight and daylight being received by the neighbouring property, it also demonstrates an acceptable form of outlook would be maintained.

Of the pair of bungalows, no11 would have a clearer line of sight of the proposed extension albeit over an intervening high close boarded fence with trellis atop. The outlook from this dwelling would be curtailed slightly, although views of the extension would generally be oblique. I note that the previous prior approval application and its subsequent appeal were only refused/dismissed on grounds of overlooking from the then proposed first floor windows, and not refused on the grounds of it being overbearing upon neighbouring residents. Bearing in mind the similar form, I consider that the first floor extension, by reason of its height and location would not give rise to a demonstrable loss of outlook to the living conditions of adjacent residents.

Provided that the first floor windows are obscurely glazed and fixed shut where below a point of 1.7m above the first floor, I consider there would be no loss of privacy to neighbouring residents either. Concerns over access and safety are also noted, but no issues have been raised by the Local Highway Authority and nor were they deemed reasons for refusal by Members of the [site address] Borough Council Planning Committee. Concerns regarding noise disruption and health related matters are also noted and can be controlled by conditions to minimise the impacts upon local residents which will be relatively short lived, being associated with the construction phase.

[name] consider that the proposal complies with Policy LP50 of the [site address] Local Plan 2020 – 2037 (adopted March 2024) which, amongst other things, requires proposals to relate well to their location and surroundings through their siting, scale, form, roofscape, design and materials and to not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised by the Parish Council and local residents, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.

In addition to the standard time limit condition the Council has suggested a condition be imposed that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and that the materials of the extension comply with the details provided within the planning application. I consider these necessary in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

In addition, the Council have also recommended a number of conditions relating to the need for a Construction and Environmental Management Plan to be submitted, along with the removal of permitted development rights for further windows and the obscuring of the glazing to those proposed at first floor level. I consider these conditions to be necessary in order to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents and furthermore I impose the Council’s suggested 7 th condition requiring the vehicle parking and turning space to be provided, in order to prevent the likelihood of on-street car parking in the interests of highway safety.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 100 [name], 102 [name] and 103 [name].

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those listed within the submitted planning application form.

No development (including site clearance and demolition) shall commence, until a Construction (and Demolition) Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include the following details as a minimum: (a) routing of construction and demolition traffic (including directional signage and appropriate traffic management measures); (b) parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; (c) areas for loading and unloading of plant and materials; (d) areas for the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development (e) location of any temporary portacabins and welfare buildings for site operatives; (f) construction and demolition working hours, and times during which delivery vehicles and vehicles taking materials away are allowed to enter or leave the site; (g) wheel-washing facilities during both demolition and construction phases; and (h) areas for the turning of construction and demolition vehicles such that the largest anticipated vehicles can turn and leave the site in a forward gear. The approved CEMP shall be adhered to throughout the demolition and construction period. Each facility (a) to (h) shall be retained throughout the course of construction of the development, free from any impediment to its designated use. No other areas on the site other than those in the approved scheme shall be used for the purposes listed (a) to (h) above.

Notwithstanding that shown on the approved plans the first floor front and rear windows in the development hereby permitted shall not be glazed at any time other than with a minimum of [name] 3 obscure glass (or equivalent) unless the parts of the window which are clear glazed are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed. They shall at all times be non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and reenacting that Order with or without modification) no additional windows, similar openings or enlargement thereof shall be constructed at first floor level front or rear elevations hereby permitted except for any which may be shown on the approved drawing(s), unless they are glazed with a minimum of [name] 3 obscure glass (or equivalent) or the parts of the window, opening or enlargement which are clear glazed are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed.

The development shall not be occupied until the associated vehicle parking and turning space for two cars to park and turn has been provided in accordance with the approved drawing. The spaces shall thereafter be kept available for parking and turning at all times.