Appeal 6002907

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the heading above is taken from the decision notice and appeal form and differs from that on the application form. This reflects changes made to the scheme prior to the determination of the application to remove a gymnasium/play room building and a 2-storey addition at the front of the property.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] East, having particular regard to outlook and light effects; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] East, having particular regard to privacy effects.

The appeal property comprises a large detached two-storey hipped roof dwelling. It is sited on the south side of [address] East within an established residential area where two-storey detached and semi-detached houses prevail.

To the west of the site is a similarly designed property at No.96 which is occupied as two flats. There is a shared driveway between these properties which provides access to a pair of garages to the rear of, and belonging to, these dwellings. To the east side is a semi-detached two-storey house at No.100, behind whose rear garden are the backs of cul-de-sac dwellings in [address].

To the rear of the appeal property there is a pitched roof two-storey outrigger projection with a single storey element to its side and a conservatory to its rear. These are subservient in scale and height to the main dwelling, with the two-storey element having a lower roof ridge height than that of the main roof, and the structures only spanning part of the width of the main house.

The appeal scheme would replace these structures with a full height two storey extension. This would extend across the whole width of the rear of the house and have a pitched roof with ridge height to match that of the main house and a rear-facing gable end.

There would be a low single storey element across its rear, and the existing garage would be replaced with a flat-roofed single storey detached garden room with a longer and wider footprint than the existing garage. By virtue of their low height and juxtaposition in relation to neighbouring properties, these single storey elements of the scheme would not materially harm neighbouring living conditions.

However, the appeal scheme would result in almost doubling the full height and full width two-storey depth of the appeal property. The resulting increase in building depth would be very apparent to the occupiers of No.100 to the east side of the site. This is because the existing single and two-storey rear projections on the rear of the appeal property are set away from the side boundary with that property and are of a significantly shorter depth than that of the appeal scheme.

There are two large habitable room windows on the side of No.100, one at ground floor level and one directly above at first floor level. These windows roughly align with the rear-most existing two-storey part of the main house on the appeal site and lie close to the side boundary between the two properties. As such, the appeal scheme, by virtue of the depth of its projection beyond the line of these windows combined with its proposed full two-storey height and position adjacent to the side boundary, would have a detrimentally overbearing and oppressive impact upon the outlook from these windows. It would also reduce the amount of daylight they receive.

The information before me is that these windows serve a ground floor kitchen/diner and a first-floor bedroom. As they are large windows serving habitable rooms that would reasonably be expected to be well-used by the occupants, I find that the resulting outlook and light impacts would amount to significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the property.

I acknowledge the presence of a timber fence and shed close to the side boundary with No.100. The existing impact of these structures on the outlook and light to the ground floor window is limited by the height of the boundary fence which is notably lower than that of the top of the window, and the position of the shed further back into the site where it does not obstruct the window. Moreover, these structures do not impact upon the upper floor window.

As such, their effect upon the windows in question is considerably less than that which would result from the appeal scheme, and they do not justify allowing the proposal.

Neither is the appeal scheme justified on the basis of another existing first floor side elevation window in the original building of No.100, as suggested by the appellant. This is because I must determine this appeal based upon the merits of the appeal scheme and the resulting impact of introducing the proposed new built development on the long-established existing living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

For the above reasons I therefore conclude that the proposal would materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] East, having particular regard to outlook and light effects. As such, in this respect the proposal would be contrary to Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name] (2012) (the Local Plan) and Policy BAP2 of the Boscombe and Pokesdown Neighbourhood Plan (November 2019) (the BPNP) in so much as these policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that new developments incorporate high standards of sustainable and inclusive design and enhance the amenities of future occupants and neighbouring residents.

This accords with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) in so much that it seeks to ensure that developments will function well with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The Council’s concerns in respect of No.96 relate to privacy impacts. The proposal would introduce 3 new large habitable room windows into the side elevation of the appeal property facing No.96. Two would be at ground floor level serving a large open plan kitchen/living/dining room and the other at first floor serving an existing bedroom.

Given a lack of boundary fencing due to the shared driveway between the two properties, all three windows have potential to impact upon the privacy of the occupiers of No.96. This is due to their proximity to that property combined with the position of the proposed kitchen and bedroom windows opposite existing lounge and bathroom windows respectively in the side of that property, and the position of the proposed dining room window in relation to the rear garden of No.96, where it would have a greater impact than that of the glazed side of the existing conservatory at the appeal property.

Notwithstanding this, I find that the privacy of the ground floor side windows of No.96 is already affected by the open nature of the shared driveway between the properties, whereby occupiers and visitors associated with the appeal property can freely traverse.

Also, none of the proposed windows would be the sole windows in the rooms which they would serve. The proposed open plan kitchen/dining/living room would have a large expanse of floor-to-ceiling height openings as well as a separate window on its rear elevation. Moreover, there is an existing window to the first-floor bedroom in question which would remain.

As such, it would not be unreasonable to require the new glazing in the proposed side elevation openings to be appropriately obscured and non-opening to a height above floor level that would preclude sideways overlooking to No.96. Accordingly, on the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that this matter is capable of being dealt with by a condition.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] East, having particular regard to privacy effects, subject to an appropriately worded planning condition. As such, in this respect the proposal would accord with Local Plan Policy CS41 and BPNP Policy BAP2, in so much as these policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that new developments incorporate high standards of sustainable and inclusive design and enhance the amenities of future occupants and neighbouring residents.

This also accords with paragraph 135 of the Framework in so much that it seeks to ensure that developments will function well with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

Notwithstanding the lack of harm in respect of privacy impacts, the adverse effect upon neighbouring living conditions having regard to outlook and daylight impacts is sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal.

For the above reasons given above I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.