Appeal 6004334

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a dormer to the side and change rear roof from hip to gable at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/02220/PFUL3 (PP-14535028) subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: A100, A101, A102 and the Location Plan, which shows the site edged red.

The Council raises no objection to the proposed hip to gable alteration or the Juliette style balcony to the rear of the enlarged dwelling. From the submitted evidence, I have no reason to disagree with that finding. Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed dormer on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal property is a detached single storey dwelling within a predominantly residential area. To the south is an electricity substation, beyond which is a two-storey dwelling at [address]. Although the reason for refusal refers to neighbouring properties to the south of the site, No 64 is the nearest and so most directly affected by the proposed dormer.

The electricity substation between the appeal property and No 64 creates a meaningful physical buffer between the proposed dormer windows and the side and rear of this neighbouring property. As a result, the relationship between the new dormer windows and the neighbouring dwelling is not one of direct side-to-side juxtaposition of the kind commonly found between residential properties.

The proposed dormer windows would serve bedrooms and a bathroom within the enlarged roof space of No 96. Whilst it is inevitable that some views towards No 64 would be available from these windows given their elevated position, the key question is whether the outcome would be unacceptable harm to the privacy of the occupiers of this adjacent property.

From what I saw, any views from the proposed dormer windows would be angled across the side boundary area of the site with its tall boundary fences and the intervening substation would largely mask the flank wall of No 64. Part of the outdoor area at the back of No 64 would be visible from the new dormer albeit at some distance and at an acute angle. None of the front or rear elevations of No 64 would be evident from the new dormer.

Upper-floor windows are commonplace within residential areas such as this and a degree of mutual visibility between neighbouring properties is often unavoidable. In this case, the degree of overlooking that may occur would be limited. It would not materially diminish the reasonable expectation of privacy enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers. Given this finding, there is no need to consider measures such as obscure glazing to overcome potential overlooking problems.

On the main issue, I conclude that the living conditions of the occupiers of No 64 or any other neighbouring properties would not be materially reduced. Accordingly, there is no conflict with Policy 10 of the [name] 1 Local Plan or Policy DE1 of the Land and Planning Policies Development Plan Document Local Plan Part 2 insofar as they seek to safeguard residential amenity.

A neighbouring occupier raises concern that the proposed rooflights could reduce the efficiency of their solar panels through overshadowing. The submitted plans show that the new rooflights would be placed high on the side roof slope of No 96 and project minimally above the roof plane. I am satisfied that this arrangement would not result in any appreciable overshadowing to the extent that it would adversely affect the performance of the neighbouring solar panels. Any impact in this regard would be minimal and would not justify withholding planning permission.

The appellant is critical of the Council and states that the decision to refuse planning permission was taken shortly after the Officer’s site visit despite a willingness to revise the scheme to address any potential concerns. My remit is, however, solely to determine this appeal.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to impose a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. The external materials to be used are specified on the submitted drawings and these would be appropriate to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the finished dwelling.

Overall, there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR