Appeal 6002687

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the application Ref S25/1301, without compliance with condition number 4 previously imposed on planning permission Ref S25/0588, dated 18 June 2025, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans:- i. Site Location Plan - Received 28/3/25 ii. [name] and Elevations - [name]. 25.020PL01-2 - Received 24/3/25 Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order amending or replacing that Order), the flat roof area of the extension hereby approved shall not be used as a balcony, terrace, roof garden or similar amenity area, and no railings, walls, parapets or other means of enclosure shall be provided on that roof unless planning permission has expressly been granted for such works.

Planning permission was granted in June 2025 for the erection of a single storey extension to the rear of the dwelling. The development has now been built. Condition 4 of that permission required that the window in the eastern elevation of the approved extension be installed with obscure glazing and with no opening part being less than 1.7m above the floor level immediately below the centre of the opening part and retained as such thereafter. The reason given for imposing the condition was to safeguard the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring/adjoining properties.

The appellant submitted an application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to remove that condition so that the window can be clearly glazed and without any restriction on its opening. The main issue in this appeal is the impact of this on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling, with reference to privacy.

It is not often necessary to require that windows in the ground floors of dwellings are obscurely glazed or have restricted openings in order to protect privacy, as it is usually possible for screening to be provided to prevent overlooking. In this instance, the window in question is offset from the boundary with the adjacent dwelling, Shamrock. Along that boundary there is a tall close boarded fence along with a shed within the rear garden of the appeal property. There is no notable difference in ground levels between the two properties and their garden areas.

When stood at floor level within the extension that has been built, vision from the window towards Shamrock is adequately screened by the fence and by the shed. The vision that is possible in that direction is not intrusive and does not result in a loss of privacy for the occupiers of Shamrock. Accordingly, Condition 4 does not meet the test set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework of being necessary. There is also no conflict with Policy DE1 of the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2020 where it seeks to protect the amenity of neighbouring users. Therefore, the condition can be removed as requested.

The effect of allowing the appeal is that a new planning permission will be created. The guidance in the Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 should also restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect.

It is not necessary to impose a condition setting out the time period to commence development as works have already begun. The external facing materials used in the construction are visually acceptable and it is as a result not necessary to reimpose a condition in that regard either.

It is however necessary to impose a condition setting out the approved plans to provide certainty, and to reimpose the condition restricting the use of the flat roof of the extension in order to protect the privacy and amenity of the occupants of the adjacent dwellinghouses.

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