Appeal 6002309

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against [site address] City Council. This is subject to a separate decision.

The application form states that the construction of the appeal scheme began in July 2025 however it has not been completed. This accords with the evidence before me and therefore I have assessed the development as shown on the plans.

I have removed words not in relation to acts of development from the description of development for clarity.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 36 [site address] (No 36) with particular regard to privacy.

[site address] [site address] (Nos 44 and 45) are located in a predominantly residential area of Castlethorpe. They are a pair of two storey, semi-detached dwellings. The appeal scheme includes, amongst other things, a two-storey rear extension on both Nos 44 and 45. This equates to a rear extension on No 44 of approximately 8 metres and around 7 metres to No 45.

Policy D5 of the Plan:MK 2016-2031 (the Plan) outlines that all proposals are required to create and protect a good standard of amenity for buildings and surrounding areas. This includes, amongst other things, that new development is not overbearing upon existing buildings and open spaces.

The New Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (the SPD) provides that for new residential developments, back-to-back privacy distances of 22 metres (measured from first floor level) should be the objective. It also outlines that for rear-to-flank developments a separation distance of 13.7 metres would be adequate.

I acknowledge that the appeal dwellings are off set at an angle from No 36 as does the Council. However, this is to my mind minimal and there is still a significant degree of overlooking. In my planning judgement, it remains that the appeal dwellings and their relationship to No 36 generally resembles a back-to-back relationship rather than a rear-to-flank relationship. Consequently, in my planning judgement, the 22-metre distance is relevant to the appeal before me rather than the 13.7 metres distance. Given the minimal extent of the off set, in my planning judgement it is not necessary to reduce the 22-metre distance in this case. However, even if it were to be reduced this would be marginal.

The pattern of development around Nos 44 and 45 is compact and I am mindful of the relationship between 43 [site address] and No 36 as well as 42 [site address] with 37 [site address] . There is a relatively close relationship between No 36 and both Nos 44 and 45 due to the compact pattern of development.

No 36 is a single storey bungalow and the existing distance between the semi-detached dwellings and the bungalow is approximately 18 metres. The distance of 22 metres outlined in the SPD is considered to be adequate for back-to-back relationships. Thus, the existing relationship between Nos 44 and 45 and No 36 is below this standard.

The introduction of a two-storey extension at Nos 44 and 45, but particularly No 44 would result in an overly dominant addition considering it would project further than the previous rear wall of the dwelling at first floor. The appeal scheme would result in approximately 15 metres between the appeal site and No 36 (when measured from the first floor). The two-storey extension would be circa 5 metres from the rear boundary fence of No 36.

Moreover, at ground floor level there would be relatively large openings with extensive glazing. Due to the proximity of the appeal scheme, these openings would be unacceptably close to No 36 and thus result in significant overlooking.

Therefore, given the proximity of the proposed development to the rear garden and windows of No 36, when considered in conjunction with the proposed two storey height of the appeal scheme, it would have an unacceptable overbearing effect upon the occupants of No 36 and result in unacceptable harm to their living conditions with particular regard to privacy.

Regarding possible mitigation that could be achieved by planning conditions. Firstly, that the first-floor windows of the appeal scheme could be obscurely glazed to prevent the overlooking of No 36. However, in my planning judgement, this would not overcome the unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 36. This is because it would not adequately mitigate the perceived sense of overlooking given the overall scale and proximity of the appeal scheme to the rear boundary of No 36.

Accordingly, given I have found the proposed obscured glazing to be inadequate to overcome the harm I have identified, it follows that the installation of rooflights to provide daylight for future occupants of the appeal scheme is not determinative in this case.

Secondly, regarding new planting and vegetation along the shared boundary with No 36, this would likely need to be substantial in size due to the proximity of the boundary of No 36 to the proposed development. Consequently, to my mind, it would result in the unacceptable enclosure of No 36 and thus unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 36.

Finally, the appellant has stated that they would accept a condition requiring any side facing windows at the upper floor level of No 44 to be obscurely glazed and fixed shut unless top-hung for ventilation. However, given this is in relation to side windows this does not overcome the harm I have identified regarding the rear windows of the appeal scheme, particularly on the proposed first floor of No 44.

Therefore, considering all of the above, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the proposed mitigation would overcome the harm which I have identified relating to the living conditions of No 36 particularly regarding privacy.

I have referred to the existing compact pattern of development surrounding the appeal site and thus acknowledge that the first-floor windows of other dwellings, including 42 and 43 [site address] as well as Nos 44 and 45, overlook No 36. However, this does not justify a development which, I have identified, would result in the further erosion of the living conditions of the occupants at No 36 regarding privacy.

The appellant refers to the footprint of a single storey rear structure that was demolished. There is limited substantive evidence before me, regarding this previous structure. However, the appeal scheme is for a two-storey extension and thus is materially different. The addition of the second floor would exacerbate the harmful proximity of Nos 44 and 45 with No 36.

[name] do not have the full circumstances of the single storey rear structure at No 43, given that it is single storey and does not contain extensive glazing, it differs materially to the appeal scheme before me. Consequently, it does not lead me to a different conclusion.

Considering all of the above, the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 36 with particular regard to privacy. It would therefore conflict with Policy D5 of the Plan insofar as it seeks to ensure all proposals create and protect a good standard of amenity including privacy.

Matters regarding daylight/sunlight have not been raised as a putative reason for refusal by the Council. Based on the evidence before me I find no reason to disagree with its conclusion on this matter. Nevertheless, a lack of harm regarding this matter does not alter my overall conclusions.

The appellant refers to perceived errors in the Council’s assessment of the proposed development, including the site levels of the appeal site. There is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that this is the case.

Furthermore, the [name] (the OR) refers to compliance with Policy D5 of the Plan subject to satisfactory details required by condition. However, in the OR it also states that the resultant impact of the appeal scheme would be one of an overbearing and oppressive nature resulting in extensive overlooking harm and a reduction in the privacy of No 36.

Nevertheless, the Council has acknowledged that this is an administrative error. The overall content of the OR is clear that there is a conflict with the Plan regarding the living conditions of No 36. Notwithstanding this, I am satisfied that the submitted plans along with the evidence before me is sufficiently robust to allow me to fully assess the scheme before me and make a determination.

Compliance with other policies in the Plan such as Policies D1, D2, D3, NE2 and CT10 are neutral factors in my determination of this appeal.

The appellant refers to support for the appeal scheme from the occupants of No

However, the occupants of No 36 cannot be assumed to live there in perpetuity. I have identified above the unacceptable harm that would result from the appeal scheme. Consequently, a lack of objection would not result in the appeal scheme being acceptable.

Furthermore, pre-application advice is not binding upon the Council. Additionally, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the Council was hostile in its determination of the application due to the fact it had been partially constructed. Therefore, whilst I acknowledge the frustration of the appellant regarding the perceived procedural inconsistency, this does not alter my conclusions on the main issue which is based on the evidence before me.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.