Appeal 6003151

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for retrospective single storey rear extension (sunroom) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/1068, subject to the following conditions:-

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings entitled [name] 1:1250@A4, [name] dated 15.08.2025, Proposed (retrospective) elevations dated 15.08.2025 and Block Plan scale 1:500 @A4.

Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans, the windows in the side elevation of the extension hereby permitted and nearest to the boundary with [address] shall be fitted with obscured glazing. Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision, details of the type of obscured glazing are submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing, and unless the approved glazing is installed within 6 months of the local planning authority’s approval, the extension shall cease being used for residential purposes and the residential use shall not resume until details of obscured glazing have been submitted and approved by the local planning authority and glazing installed in accordance with the approved details. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

The description of development in the header is taken from the planning application form. The Council’s decision notice includes a different description but there is no evidence before me to indicate this has been agreed with the appellant. On my visit I saw the extension has been completed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on living conditions at the neighbouring property, [address] (No 60), in terms of privacy.

A window in the flank wall of the rear extension is near to the side boundary of the appeal site. A close-boarded boundary fence prevents overlooking from the back garden of the appeal property towards No 60’s garden and ground floor windows. However, the floor level of the extension is set slightly above the garden at the appeal property and so the extension’s side window provides easier views over the fence and towards No 60’s rear windows and part of its back garden. The fence limits overlooking to a degree but the extension is near to the common boundary and it sits above the level of No 60. As a result, the downward views from the sunroom into the neighbouring property’s windows and garden are quite intrusive.

The appellant has suggested the side window could be fitted with obscured glazing. The sunroom has clear glazed windows on the rear and on the other side elevation that provide the extension with acceptable levels of light and outlook. As such, a condition that requires the side window nearest to No 60 to be obscured glazed would be reasonable as it would not unduly spoil the living environment within the extension. It would also prevent any overlooking from the extension onto the neighbouring property.

Subject to the imposition of an obscured glazing condition, I conclude the extension would have an acceptable effect on living conditions at No 60 in terms of privacy. In these regards, the development accords with policy L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy 2017 and the requirement that extensions avoid harm arising from loss of privacy.

At the Council’s suggestion, I have imposed a condition that lists the approved plans for reasons of clarity. I have sought views from the Council and the appellant on the second condition that relates to obscured glazing. As it has been built, the condition requires the cessation of residential use of the extension if details of the obscured glazing are not submitted to and approved by the local planning authority or if the approved glazing is not installed. This is required to ensure no unacceptable loss of privacy to No 60.

For the above reasons, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.