Appeal 6002782

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning application ref 23/01990/HHOLD granted permission for extensions and alterations to the dwelling. The approved plans showed alterations to the first-floor accommodation on the eastern side of the dwelling, including the conversion of a bedroom to an ensuite and the reduction in size of an east-facing first-floor window. The current proposal seeks to vary condition 1 attached to that permission so as to retain the room as a bedroom and retain the larger clear-glazed first floor window.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at 15 [name], with particular regard to overlooking and privacy.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling located at the end of a cul-de-sac. The plot was formerly substantially larger before subdivision and the construction of the neighbouring dwellings to the east at Nos 15 and 17 [name]. The closest neighbouring property at No [address] to the eastern flank of the appeal property and includes west-facing ground-floor windows serving a habitable room.

I have had regard to the planning history of the site, including permissions relating to the subdivision of the original plot and the construction of Nos 15 and 17 [name]. The parties disagree as to whether the relevant planning history establishes an expectation or requirement that the east-facing first-floor window be obscure glazed. Whilst the approved plans under permission ref 19/01669/F showed alterations to the fenestration including obscure glazing to east-facing first-floor windows, the subsequent permissions granted in 2023 did not expressly specify obscure glazing to the smaller ensuite window. Nevertheless, the planning history demonstrates that earlier approved schemes sought to reduce overlooking between the properties through altered fenestration and the reconfiguration of the room layout.

Given this, I do not consider it necessary or possible within the context of this appeal to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the precise effect of the earlier permissions. In any event, the appeal proposal should be determined on its own planning merits having regard to the relationship that would exist between the properties.

I note the presence of vegetation along the shared boundary with No 15, including evergreen trees and bushes. Nevertheless, direct views towards the neighbouring living room windows remain available from the appeal property's first-floor window despite the intervening vegetation. The neighbouring side elevation and windows form a notable part of the outlook from the appeal property's first-floor room, rather than fleeting or peripheral glimpses. The overlooking is directed towards a principal habitable room rather than a secondary space such as a hallway, landing or bathroom, and expectations of privacy within living rooms are comparatively high.

Furthermore, the appeal property's first-floor position creates an elevated outlook towards the neighbouring windows, increasing the sense of visual intrusion compared with a ground-floor relationship. Whilst the vegetation softens and partially interrupts views between the properties, it does not fully prevent intervisibility between the respective windows.

Given the relatively close and direct relationship between the appeal property's first-floor bedroom window and the neighbouring habitable room windows, the occupiers of No 15 would likely be aware of the overlooking relationship when using their living room, particularly when lights are on internally. The relationship would also create pressure for the occupiers of No 15 to rely more heavily on curtains, blinds or additional screening in order to maintain privacy within their principal living accommodation.

I acknowledge that vegetation and landscaping can contribute positively towards privacy mitigation in residential environments. However, in this case the existing planting does not adequately overcome the overlooking identified. I have carefully considered the appellant’s suggestion that a condition could require the boundary hedge and planting to be maintained at a specified height. However, I am not persuaded that such an approach would provide an appropriate or sufficiently robust solution to the identified harm. The effectiveness of the screening would depend not simply upon the height of vegetation, but also its density, condition and long-term maintenance. Moreover, the appellant’s proposal would also partially rely upon neighbouring boundary vegetation to mitigate the overlooking effects of the development, rather than resolving the relationship through the design of the development itself. I therefore do not consider that such a condition would provide an appropriate or reasonable solution.

I have also considered whether the imposition of a condition requiring obscure glazing could overcome the identified harm. However, the retained room would function as a bedroom, and the side window would provide the principal source of outlook for that room. In those circumstances, a condition requiring obscure glazing would materially diminish the quality of accommodation for future occupiers.

The appellant submitted a photograph of the common boundary prior to the erection of the existing fence. The neighbouring property’s side windows did face towards the appeal property’s ground floor windows. However, views from those windows towards the appeal property are now restricted by the boundary fence. In contrast, the appeal property’s first-floor bedroom window retains direct views towards the neighbouring habitable room windows from an elevated position. Consequently, I do not consider the relationship between the properties to be comparable or mutually equivalent in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 15 [name] resulting in harm by way of unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 insofar as it seeks to ensure proposals are of high quality design and do not adversely impact upon the amenity of occupants of existing nearby buildings.

The appellant refers to the financial implications of carrying out alterations to convert the room to an ensuite in accordance with the approved plans. [name] have had regard to those circumstances, they do not outweigh the harm that I have identified.

The appellant refers to Sections 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, together with case law. I accept that development proposals should be assessed having regard to the development plan as a whole and that a balance must be struck with all other material considerations, and that planning decision-makers retain planning judgment in the application of policy. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, I have found that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and would therefore conflict with Policy DES1 of the Council’s Development Management Plan. I do not consider that the other matters advanced by the appellant outweigh that conflict or indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

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.