Appeal 6003084

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in the appeal are (a) the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and (b) the effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No [address] with regard to privacy.

[address] is a cul-de-sac arrangement of predominantly two storey red brick dwellings which step up a hillside. The dwellings at the lower end are in terraced arrangements, which give way to semi-detached pairs and exclusively detached dwellings on the highest parts of the cul-de-sac. Notwithstanding some limited gable examples, roof forms visible from the public realm on [address] are modest, hipped roof forms with few noticeable alterations to the front. These repetitive house types, with predominance of red brick and recurring bay window features give the area a gentle homogenous character.

[address], to the rear of [address], also climbs up the hillside and has two storey housing with pitched roof forms and a more neutral coloured brick-style cladding to the exterior. The appeal dwelling is situated on a relatively elevated position which means that the rear of the dwelling is relatively exposed from two particular vantage points on [address].

Due also to the topography of the area and the relatively tight urban context, the appeal dwelling and rear of No [address] (No 21) have an almost direct back to back arrangement and despite the c. 30 metre separation, are particularly exposed to one another. The window to window arrangement is already quite intimate, with the appeal dwelling having some height advantage from which to offer relatively clear views towards rear windows and the conservatory at No 21.

The appeal proposal would extend from hips to gables on both sides and would include the formation of a rear dormer with a balcony. The overall height of the roof extensions would be around the same height as the existing ridge with the flat roof of the dormer stepping down very modestly from this high point. The dormer would also be set in very modestly from the new roof sides. However, it would not be set back from the existing eaves level and would instead extend outwards to level with the bay window below.

[name] appreciate that there are a variety of roof types and forms visible within the wider locale, of which many examples have been provided1, the appeal proposal would break away from the gentle homogeneity relevant to the more local built context with a strident and top heavy intervention at the rear which would not pay sufficient regard to the existing dwelling’s scale, mass and key features. Whilst from the front, the change to a pitched roof form would not, in itself, cause harm, the bulk at the rear would appear ungainly. Though the rear of the dwelling is only experienced from a number of private views and only limited public vantage points, it would still be visible and the limited number of receptors is not, in itself, justification to allow insensitive development. The consistency of material treatment and reuse of roof slates would not sufficiently overcome these identified issues. I also reach these conclusions having had regard to the numerous examples of roof forms and permitted alterations elsewhere in Weymouth2 and the example given of a more local alteration undertaken via permitted development rights at No [address].

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with policies ENV10 and ENV12 of [name] and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (Local Plan) (adopted 2015). These policies seek to ensure that development is informed by the character of the site and its surroundings, and in respect of extensions, seek to ensure that they do not overpower the original building. For similar reasons, the proposal conflicts with policy W44 of the emerging Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan which seeks to ensure that proposals for new development demonstrate high quality design, and have regard to prevailing scale, massing and density and the development principles set out elsewhere in the Neighbourhood Plan.

The baseline situation is that there is a high degree of mutual overlooking between the appeal dwelling and No 21. Due to the appeal dwelling being on a higher level, views from first floor windows reveal much of the conservatory at ground floor of No 21, in addition to the clear views towards first floor windows (where not obscure glazed or fitted with internal privacy measures). The intervening boundary provides a small degree of relief between the gardens and at least at ground floor level.

The appeal proposal would not be materially closer to No 21 than the existing rear wall but it would add another storey at the highest level from which overlooking towards No 21 would be possible. Whilst the viewing angle that would be achievable from the dormer would be around 4° more than that achievable from the existing first floor windows and could not, therefore, be held to give rise to ‘bird’s-eye’ overlooking, it would still have an even greater height advantage than 1 Including at appellant Statement appendices 3, 5 and 7, albeit limited details have been provided in respect of each 2 Including those listed in Appendix 4, albeit limited details have been provided in respect of each: P/HOU/2022/07886; WP/14/01062/OUT and WP/18/00049/RES; P/OUT/2022/00852; P/VOC/2022/05086 and P/VOC/2024/01875; P/HOU/2023/07363; WP/17/00189/FUL and WP/20/00965/VOC; 07/00448/FULM; 10/00602/FUL; P/VOC/2023/02548; APP/P1235/W/20/3255712; APP/P1235/W/18/3215730; APP/D1265/W/21/3275012; APP/D1265/W/20/3258964 and APP/1265/D/22/3312286 the existing windows. Furthermore, the dormer extension would be almost entirely glazed across the width of the elevation with a full height glazed curtain that could fold back to provide an enlarged balcony space opening into the main bedroom. The amount of glazing, height difference between the dwellings and the exposed nature of the intervening boundary would mean that occupiers of No 21 would not have any real means to avoid being overlooked or the sense of being overlooked.

[name] note that the evidence refers to integral blinds, ‘smart glass’ and the willingness of the appellant to accept obscure glazing or fixed-light conditions for secondary windows, these solutions do not appear capable of meaningfully addressing the intrusive effects on the neighbouring occupiers at No 21 without undermining the purpose of the large, glazed façade and balcony.

Additionally, whilst the extent of glazing in the attic conversion at No [address] may be comparable to that proposed, it is not clear that it has the same relationship with a neighbouring dwelling when compared with the appeal dwelling and No 21. I also note that permitted development rights were used at No [address] and that such may be used at the appeal dwelling. However, I am not persuaded that the appeal scheme is so comparable to any fallback scheme that could be achieved utilising permitted development rights that it indicates that the appeal proposal should be permitted. Lastly, whilst I have limited details in respect of the other local example at Appendix 10 of the appellant’s Statement, it does little to justify another instance where a harmful relationship would result.

In view of the above, the proposal conflicts with, in particular, policy ENV16 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that development does not have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of occupiers of residential properties through loss of privacy.

I accept that conditions could be used to ensure that neighbouring occupiers on either side of the appeal dwelling would not be harmed. This lack of harm is not determinative of the scheme. Furthermore, whilst there is a lack of objection from any neighbouring occupiers and the Town Council, the planning system exists to protect both current and future occupiers.

The identified harms bring the appeal scheme into conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole.

The scheme would increase the size of the appeal dwelling to better accommodate the appellant and his growing family. Whilst it would do this with minor construction phase economic benefits, I am not persuaded that the appeal scheme is the only means of achieving such outcomes.

Therefore, in the absence of material considerations to indicate otherwise, the decision should be taken in accordance with the development plan and the appeal should be dismissed.