Appeal 6005152

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to erection of flat roofed dormer to rear elevation and 2 pitched dormers to front elevation. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to inner garden wall and detached outbuilding at Setterfields, [site address] , [site address] , Dover, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01284, and the plans submitted with it so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions:

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

The inner garden wall and outbuilding hereby permitted shall be completed in accordance with the following approved plans in so far as they are relevant to the development permitted:25:266:001:A3:[name], 25:266:002:A3:PL, 25:266:003:A3:PL, 25:266:004:A3:PL and 25:266:005:A3:[name].

The garden wall and the external walls of the detached outbuilding herby permitted shall be constructed from materials that match the host dwelling, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of any works above foundation level, whereby the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The description for the proposed development refers to a boundary wall, whereas in fact it is an internal garden wall. Accordingly, for the avoidance of any confusion I propose to refer to it as an internal garden wall in this decision.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I confirm that this decision is based upon substitute [name]: 25:266:005:A3:[name] which is referred to in the councils delegated report and their email to the appellant dated 22 January 2026.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], [address], 8 [site address] (No.8) and 10 [site address] (No.10), with particular regard to privacy and visual impact.

Setterfields occupies a ‘backland’ site with access via a narrow driveway between No.8 and Hougham Village Hall. The appeal dwelling comprises a chalet style dwelling with modest sized rooflights in its front and rear roof-slopes and varied sized windows in its gable ends. With the proposal two dormer windows would be inserted in the front roof-slope and one of the existing roof-lights would be removed. The two roof-lights on the rear roof-slope would be replaced with a wide flat roofed dormer extension with windows serving two bedrooms and a first floor office. The proposal also includes an inner garden wall and a replacement outbuilding.

The outlook from the existing roof-lights is restricted due to a combination of their height, size, angle and siting within the roof skeilings. They are angled towards the sky and this is the general outlook they provide from the rooms they serve. The ceiling heights in close proximity to the rooflights are reduced and it is only when standing close to the roof-lights that there are clear views into the adjacent rear garden environment.

In particular, when standing immediately in front of the rooflights in the rear roof slope when they are open, there are clear and close views of the dwelling and the main sitting out area at [address]. Due to their close proximity this results in a material loss of privacy for the occupiers of [address]. However, this loss of privacy is limited by the fact that such views are only possible when standing very close to the rooflights. Views towards the dwelling beyond [address] are more distant.

From these rooflights currently views towards [address] are obscured by dense planting. If this planting was removed views towards the house and garden at [address] would be at a slightly oblique angle and largely restricted to views when standing very close to the rooflights.

The rooflights in the front roof slope face towards the dwelling and garden at No.8, although currently they are largely obscured by the existing boundary hedge. However, if this hedge was reduced in height or removed there would be direct views into the rear garden and towards the main sitting out area at No.8. Views towards the dwelling and main sitting out area at No.10 are more distant and at a slightly oblique angle. As with the rear facing rooflights this loss of privacy is limited by the fact that such views are only possible when standing very close to the rooflights.

It should be noted that when viewed from the adjacent dwellings and gardens the existing rooflights appear modest and insignificant. This is due to their flush siting within the roof slope as well as the mass of the appeal dwelling’s roof-slope. This minimises the perception of being overlooked.

Views of the adjacent garden to the side of Settersfield from the first floor side window in bedroom 1 are currently partially screened by the roof of the existing garage at the side of the appeal dwelling. From bedrooms 2 and 3 the side windows in the gable end provide views into the bottom half of the rear garden at No.10. This does reduce the privacy within this part of the garden, although views towards the dwelling and main sitting out area at No.10 are oblique and more distant. From these windows views towards the rear garden at [address] are similarly at an oblique angle and are orientated away from the dwelling and main sitting out area of that property. .12. Collectively and amongst other things policies H6 e), PM1 Part 1 c) and PM2 a) of the Dover Local Plan to 2040 (DLP), seek to ensure that proposals are compatible with neighbouring buildings. They should not lead to unacceptable living conditions for the occupiers of neighbouring properties due to overlooking. Paragraph 135 f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), is more general. It states that decisions should ensure that developments promote health and wellbeing, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The proposed windows would be set within large dormer extensions and so would project forward of the existing roof plane. Even with the indicated proposed extensive use of obscure glazing the outlook from the proposed dormer windows in bedrooms 2 & 3 and the office would be more expansive both when standing close to the window and deeper into the rooms concerned. As a consequence, the level of overlooking and loss of privacy would be materially increased.

I appreciate that currently the front hedge and other boundary planting provide a significant level of screening around the site. Also, that in time the proposed planting along the rear boundary would increase the level of screening. However, the good health, retention, height and density of such planting could not be guaranteed in the future. As such, whilst it would be reasonable to seek to retain the existing and proposed planting to soften and help screen views between properties, it is not something that should be totally relied on to protect the privacy of local residents.

[name] agree that the loss of privacy would be increased when the windows were opened this could be addressed through the use of window opening restrictors. This is a matter that could be satisfactorily dealt with by condition. The obscure glazing indicated on the revised proposals plan could similarly reasonably be secured through the imposition of conditions.

Visually, the proposed dormer extensions would be both large and prominent on the roof slopes and within the rear garden environment. Notwithstanding the use of obscure glazing the sense of being overlooked would be materially increased, when compared to the existing rooflights.

The demolition of the existing garage and its replacement with a flat roofed outbuilding would open up slightly deeper views from the side window in bedroom 1 over the adjacent garden area. However, the proposed outbuilding would provide some screening. Whilst this adds to my concerns regarding privacy, on its own it would not amount to a reason for dismissing this appeal.

For these reasons the proposal would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy for the occupiers of No.8, No.10, [address] and [address]. This harm would clearly outweigh the benefits for the appellants and their family that would result from the increased floor area within the resultant first floor rooms. The overall harm caused is not something that could be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of conditions.

[name] have taken into consideration the juxtaposition and distance between other properties in the locality, none were directly comparable to the appeal dwelling. Due to its sensitive ‘backland’ garden location the introduction of new first floor windows have the potential to impact on the living conditions of nearby residents. This reinforces the need to assess each proposal on its individual merits and in light of the prevailing planning policies.

I conclude on the main issue that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.8, No,10, [address] and [address] due to increased loss of privacy. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with [name] H6 e) & PM1 Part 1 c) and paragraph 135 f) of the Framework

The size and proportions of the proposed dormer extensions would respect the character and appearance of the existing roof of the dwelling. The proposed windows would be out of alignment and materially larger than the existing first floor windows. However, the roof is a dominant feature of the dwelling and the ground floor of the dwelling is largely screened from neighbouring properties and [site address] scene. For these reasons, I find that the form and bulk of the proposed dormer extensions would blend in satisfactorily the host dwelling and its wider setting.

I am concerned that the extensive areas of obscure glazing could materially detract from the character and appearance of the proposed resultant roof. This is important having regard to the prominence of the roof of the host dwelling within the rear garden environment. [name] found in favour of the appellant in relation to the main issue this is a matter upon which I would have sought further details from the appellant and comments from the council.

Having regard to the location of the appeal property within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty it is not a matter that could appropriately be dealt with by condition. This is to accord with current legislation and policies relating to designated National landscapes, which includes the Kent Down Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The proposed outbuilding would be modest in size and form and would be discretely positioned to the side of the host dwelling. The proposed inner garden wall would be located to the side of the dwelling and would screen the office/store and rear garden from the driveway. Both of these structures would respect the host dwelling and would be readily assimilated into the rear garden environment and the wider landscape. They would comply with DLP Policy NE2 which seeks to conserve and enhance local landscape character.

Although precise details of the materials to be used in the construction of the proposed outbuilding and the internal garden wall have not been provided, this is a matter that could be satisfactorily dealt with by condition. A condition which requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans would also be necessary. This is to accord with the details of the proposal and in the interests of certainty.

In view of the acceptability of the proposed inner garden wall and outbuilding I have considered the possibility of making a split decision. As the wall and outbuilding would be physically and functionally separate from the roof extensions to the dwelling a split decision is possible and appropriate.

I have also considered whether it would be appropriate to issue a split decision regarding the proposed dormer window in the front roof-slope which serves a bathroom. However, I am concerned about the lack of detailing regarding the obscure glazed windows and the impact the dormer window could have on the front elevation and roofscape of the dwelling, in isolation of the other front dormer extension.

Finally, I note the concerns raised by the appellants regarding the councils handing of the planning application. However, they are not relevant to my consideration of the merits of the proposal.

Having regard to the conclusion of the main issue and all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed in-so-far as it relates to the erection of flat roofed dormer to rear elevation and 2 pitched dormers to front elevation. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the proposed inner garden wall and outbuilding.