Appeal 6003651

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension and enlargement of rear first floor dormers plus rear terrace at [site address] , Hove [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: BH2025/01832, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2506/01; 2506/2/B; 2506/3/B; 2506/4/B; 2506/5/B.

Notwithstanding the approved plans, and prior to the first floor rear terrace hereby permitted first being brought into use, revised details of the side privacy screens (north and south boundaries to the terrace), which shall have a minimum height of 1.8m above the finished floor level of the terrace, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall also include details of the materials to be used for the screens. The approved screens shall be in place prior to the first floor rear terrace first being brought into use and thereafter retained and maintained as approved.

Amended plans were submitted during the course of the application to reduce the width of the terrace and to introduce side privacy screens. My decision is based on the plans as determined by the Council.

The main issues in this appeal are: a) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and on the local area, and b) The effect of the proposal, and in particular the proposed rear terrace on the living conditions of the immediate neighbours, including at No [address], with particular regard to overlooking and loss of privacy.

The appeal property is a chalet bungalow on the west side of [address] and within a predominantly residential area, comprising a mix of properties and generally on good sized plots.

The proposal seeks to erect a single storey rear extension, together with the enlargement of the existing two rear facing dormers to create one dormer, and the installation of a rear terrace with side privacy screens. There would be other alterations to the property, including fenestration changes and the conversion of the existing garage into a habitable room with the replacement of the garage door with a window.

Apart from the change to the garage door to become a window to serve the new room the proposed changes would be primarily at the rear of the building. At the rear there would, following the demolition of the existing projecting rear extension, be a deeper and wider ground floor rear extension. However, it would be set in from both side elevations and side boundaries. It would have a flat roof and although the roof would be higher than the existing eaves level, overall, in terms of its scale, footprint and proportions I consider it would appear as a subordinate addition to the main dwelling.

The existing two single dormers at the rear would be replaced with one wider dormer under a crown roof, with two full length windows opening onto a terrace with side privacy screens to the terrace. The proposed changes to the two dormers would result in it becoming a larger addition to the rear roof slope but it would remain set in from the side elevations and I do not consider that the proposed dormer would appear overly dominant in relation to the overall scale and proportions of the property.

I am satisfied that the combined effect of the proposed extensions and alterations, taken together, would be acceptable in relation to the scale and massing of the existing dwelling and in relation to the size of the plot and the rear garden.

There are a wide variety of dwellings in the immediate vicinity, including both single storey and two storey properties, many of which appear to have been extended and altered, and on a range of plot sizes. Given my findings that the proposed extensions and changes would respect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and its plot, I am also satisfied that there would be no harm to the varied character and appearance of this residential area.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area. There would be no conflict with Policy CP12 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One (CP 1) and Policy DM21 of the Brighton and Hove City Plan Part Two (CP 2) as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and in particular Section 12, all of which amongst other matters seek a high standard of design which respects the local context.

Given the distance to both side boundaries, I consider that the position of the ground floor extension in relation to the siting of the neighbouring properties, as well as the proposed fenestration in relation to the existing would be acceptable and would not be over dominant in respect of the amenities of the neighbours in terms of outlook, privacy and light.

There would be larger openings to the dormers compared with the existing and the addition of the rear terrace. However, and as noted at my site visit, there are, as existing, some views towards neighbouring gardens from the first floor rear windows and from within the rear garden. Some mutual overlooking is not unusual between residential properties within built up residential areas.

Privacy screens have been proposed to the side boundaries of the roof terrace, and I agree that screens would be necessary to protect direct views towards the adjoining properties, and towards their rear gardens closest to their dwellings. However, there is limited information before me regarding the form of these screens, and furthermore I am not persuaded that 1.5 m would be a sufficient height to serve the intended purpose. Nonetheless, and in the light of paragraph 56 of the Framework, I consider that a condition could be imposed to require further details of these screens in terms of both the height and materials for the privacy screen. I am satisfied that the increased height required for the privacy screens to be effective would not add materially to the bulk and massing of the proposed works.

With privacy screens in place, the principal views from the terrace would be directed over the rear garden of the appeal property, although there may be some views towards the furthest parts of the rear gardens of the immediately neighbouring properties at both Nos 2 and [address]. Given the distances from the terrace and taking into account that there is some existing mutual overlooking between properties and over neighbouring rear gardens, I do not consider that the extent of overlooking would be materially altered, compared with the existing position.

I am therefore satisfied that, subject to a condition as discussed above, the proposed development would not materially harm the living conditions of the immediate neighbours, including at No 2, with particular regard to overlooking and loss of privacy. There would be no conflict with Policies DM20 and DM21 of CP2 and the Framework and in particular Paragraph 135, all of which amongst other matters seek to protect the amenities of existing and future occupiers.

A number of concerns have been raised about increased noise and disturbance from the proposed roof terrace, but given the limited size of the terrace, I am not persuaded that any noise levels would be materially increased over and above those which might be expected and experienced by residents within their rear gardens within a residential area.

Views have been expressed about the number of applications submitted and extension works undertaken to the existing property, but each application must be assessed on its individual merits which has been the basis of my consideration.

Materials should match the existing property to respect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and of the local area. The approved plans should be listed in the interests of good planning and for the avoidance of doubt.

Notwithstanding the approved plans and for the reasons set out above, I consider that revised details of the privacy screens in terms of a minimum height of 1.8m as well as the materials for the screens should be submitted and approved to protect the living conditions of the immediate neighbours, with particular regard to overlooking and loss of privacy. Whilst the addition of this condition has not been raised with the Appellant, I am satisfied that the imposition of this condition would not prejudice those involved with this appeal as it solely seeks to amend the details of an existing proposed feature of the scheme.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including in representations, I conclude that this appeal should be allowed.