Appeal 6003294

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit two upper storey windows on the rear of [site address] (No 15) had been blocked up and new windows constructed. These appear in the proposed window locations shown on the proposal.

The appellants identify that, during the application process, they have submitted an amended plan, 15ESSEX02 RevD to replace 15Essex10 RevB. However, the Council did not consider the revised plans when it determined the application, and the decision letter refers to 15Essex10 RevB. The Procedural Guide makes it clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. Furthermore, were I to accept the revised plans this would give rise to injustice as interested parties would not have had the opportunity to provide comments on them. Therefore, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plan, 15Essex10 RevB.

The main issues in this appeal are: - • The effect of the proposal on living conditions of neighbours at 13 and [address], with particular reference to enclosure and privacy; and • Whether the proposal would provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers of the site.

[site address] (No 15) is a two-storey detached house. It lies between two short residential terraces and is set back further from the street than either. Similarly, No 15 projects further to the rear than the backs of either.

There is a narrow accessway running between No 15 and [address] (No 17). This abuts the flank wall of No 17, then runs along a boundary formed by a close-boarded timber fence. On the other side the boundary between no 15 and [address] (No 13) is a similar fence, but, in that case, there is a gap between the fence and the flank of No 15, and No 13 has a narrow accessway on that side.

The proposal would add a part two-storey, part single-storey rear extension to No 15. This would extend the two-storey element that projects to the rear of both Nos 13 and 17.

During my site visit I observed that both Nos 13 and 17 have windows on the rear elevations close to the boundary with No 15. Further, No [address] to the boundary alongside. It is likely that the areas immediately adjacent to the rear elevations of Nos 13 and 17 provide the principle outdoor amenity space for these dwellings.

The proposal would extend a featureless, two-storey wall close to the boundaries of No 15 with Nos 13 and 17. The proposal would introduce windows in flank walls at upper floor level. However, this would do little to alleviate the overall massing of the flank wall.

Anyone in the garden of Nos 13 or [address] to the rear of the building or at the windows closest to the boundary would experience an increased sense of enclosure from the new structure.

The proposal includes three first floor side windows, one in the west elevation serving a bedroom, and two in the east elevation, one for a bedroom, and one for a study. Because of the rear projection of No 15 the rearmost windows directly overlook the neighbour’s rear amenity space and the conservatory of No 13.

That overlooking No 13 is a secondary window on a section of passage. It would, therefore, be reasonable to control the outlook from this window through the use of obscure glazing and means of opening to address privacy concerns.

However, the window serving the bedroom on the eastern elevation is its only window and obscure glazing would have implications for the living conditions of the occupiers of No 15. I will return to this matter below. Any overlooking from the window would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the private amenity space of No 17.

I therefore conclude that the development would result in significant harm to the living conditions of neighbours at 13 and [address], with particular reference to enclosure and privacy, contrary to Policies M1, M2, M9 and M10 of the Dartford Local Plan (2024) (the Local Plan), which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that, through good design, development, including extensions, does not materially harm the living conditions of neighbouring properties to an unacceptable degree.

I have identified, above, that the proposal would introduce a window for a bedroom on the eastern flank wall. This is the only window serving the bedroom and overlooks the private amenity space of No 17. It faces over the rear of No 17 and the dark roof structure of No [address]. Thus, the outlook from the window is restricted.

It will be seen that I have found that the window overlooks the private amenity of No 17 and it has been suggested that this could be addressed by obscure-glazing the window. However, its introduction would result in the room becoming dim and having no outlook, to the detriment of the wellbeing of occupiers.

I therefore find that the proposal would not provide appropriate living conditions for future occupiers of the site. This would be contrary to the aims of Policy M9 of the Dartford Local Plan (2024), which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that residential developments provide high-quality amenity space to meet the health, recreation and functional needs of occupants.

I note that the appellant sought to reflect advice provided by the Council’s officers when bringing the proposal forward. I further note that the neighbours have not objected to the proposed window.

However, officer advice is not binding. Whilst the views of the neighbour are a consideration, the relationship of the window to the neighbouring private amenity space would be permanent, and its effects felt by any future occupier of the property. I have determined this case on its merits, having regard to planning policy and practice.

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. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.