Appeal 6002079

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side extension including demolition of existing garage, at [site address] , Cambridgeshire, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/YR25/0767/F, and the plan submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing number PL01.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the south (rear) facing first floor bedroom window has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

The main issues are the effects of the development on: • the living conditions of occupiers of No. [address], with particular regard to privacy and outlook; and • parking provision.

The appeal property is a two‐storey semi‐detached dwelling located on a triangular shaped plot, on the corner of [address]. No. [address] lies to the southeast, set at a right angle to the appeal property.

At present, two modest sized first floor bedroom windows are located on its rear elevation which face directly down its tapered rear garden. Being in the western side of the dwelling, these windows are set away from the neighbour at No. 22, with the existing two storey extension closer to the neighbour, having no first floor windows in its side or rear elevations.

In contrast, the proposal would introduce a new, larger rear bedroom window into the extension, positioned significantly closer to the neighbouring property than the existing arrangement. Although south-facing and overlooking the appeal site’s modest rear garden, the tapered alignment of the plots means the window would also enable direct, close‐range views into the private rear garden of No. 22, views that are not currently achievable.

The Council assert the extension would be around 8m away from the closest first floor rear elevation window, a matter undisputed by the appellant. At such a distance, mutual overlooking between the windows of the two properties would be possible, although it would be at an oblique angle.

However, the plans show the rear facing bedroom window is not the only source of light to the proposed bedroom, which also benefits from a window fronting the road. Consequently, a suitable means of mitigation would be to ensure the rear facing window is obscure glazed and partially non-opening which would safeguard the privacy of occupiers of No. 22. This could be secured by condition.

Reference is made by both parties to a 45-degree assessment in respect of light, albeit neither has provided in evidence where this is laid out. As such I have not been able to have regard to it.

The extension would not protrude beyond the existing rear building line and the majority of the windows within No. 22 facing west are within the main two storey element, set away from the proposed extension. As such, even with the increased scale, bulk and massing, the level of visual encroachment and loss of light would likely be minimal to No. 22. Accordingly, I do not find that this would amount to a demonstrable adverse effect in terms of loss of light, oppression or visual dominance.

In light of the above, with mitigation, I am satisfied that the development would not adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 22 with particular regard to privacy and outlook. Therefore, the development accords with Policies LP2 and LP16 of the Fenland Local Plan (2014) (LP) as the scheme achieves a high level of residential amenity and avoids adverse impacts, such as the loss of privacy and loss of light.

The plans show that the proposal would increase the appeal property from a three to a four-bedroom dwelling.

LP Policy LP15 expects all new development to provide well designed car parking that meets the Council’s defined parking standards set out in [name]. This, in turn, sets out minimum parking standards for dwellings. Those with four or more bedrooms are expected to provide 3 parking spaces, which may include a garage.

The existing garage would be demolished to facilitate the proposed extension. However, the existing parking area currently laid with hardcore to the site frontage would remain unchanged. Whilst this space is not formally marked out, I observed during my site visit that this is sufficient in size to allow for two vehicles to comfortably park side by side immediately in front of the dwelling. Additionally, there is ample space for a third vehicle to park in tandem should it be necessary. Although tandem parking could cause some inconvenience for occupiers of the appeal dwelling by having to manoeuvre vehicles around to allow cars to exit the site, this is not an uncommon form of parking in residential areas. Moreover, this form of parking is not precluded by the parking standards.

Having found that the site can readily accommodate three vehicles, it follows that the risk of overspill parking onto the road would be minimal. Even if it did, given [address] is a no through road that appears to be lightly trafficked, it has not been clearly demonstrated how this would constitute adverse amenity impacts for existing residents.

Consequently, I find that the parking provision would be adequate and commensurate to the size of the dwelling. It follows that I identify no conflict with LP Policy LP15 or [name], the objectives of which I have set out above. Nor do I find conflict with LP Policy LP16, insofar as it expects proposals to deliver high quality environments that protect against harm to the amenity of neighbouring users.

The plan shows an additional window would also be installed into the rear elevation of the existing dwelling at first floor. Serving an en-suite, it is likely that the appellant would want this to be obscure glazed in the interests of their privacy. However, being located further away from the neighbour, it would not cause an unacceptable loss of privacy in the same way as the bedroom window. Therefore, I have not imposed a condition to secure it.

In addition to the standard time condition (No. 1), for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition (No. 2) requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plan.

The plan lacks detail regarding external facing materials. [name]. 3 is therefore necessary to ensure that materials match the existing dwelling.

As set out above, a condition to safeguard the privacy of the neighbour is necessary to make this scheme acceptable. I have therefore imposed [name]. 4 requiring the installation and retention of obscure glazing.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.