Appeal 6006680

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the re-modelling of a bungalow with demolition of extensions and garage to the west and erection of new extensions to the west and at roof level at [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/26/0014, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with [name] 0621 P 01 (titled “[name]”), 0621 P 02 (titled “Proposed Roof Plan”), and 0621 P 10 (titled “[name]”).

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on [name] 0621 P 10 (titled “[name]”).

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the first-floor dormer windows on the east and west elevations have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no first-floor windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be constructed on the west and east elevations of the development hereby permitted.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to daylight, sunlight and outlook.

The area is predominantly characterised by bungalows of various layouts and architectural styles on plots of differing widths. Building lines along this section of the street are generally consistent. However, the dwellings at 47 and [address] on the same side of the road as the appeal site are set further forward in their plots. Building heights and the roofscape are also varied, with dormer windows of differing sizes and proportions.

The existing dwelling has front and rear building lines that are broadly in line with neighbouring dwelling at [address]. The site has a large frontage with hardstanding for parking and a generous private garden to the rear. The existing dwelling has been extended over time, including flat-roofed additions and a conservatory to the side and rear abutting No 47, which sits on land that is slightly higher than the appeal site.

The proposal would raise the overall height of the dwelling from around 4.8m to approximately 6m. The street-facing elevation would incorporate two gable features beneath a front-sloping roof with rooflights. A recessed side garage element would be set lower than the main roof and would incorporate a single dormer window. Although the proposal would add substantial height, massing and bulk to the front elevation, it would not appear out of keeping with the street scene, given the variety of built forms within the area. Moreover, its overall height would remain comparable to neighbouring dwellings, in particular Nos 43 and 47.

The proposal would also broadly preserve the existing front building line. This would align with No 43 and would be significantly set back from that of No 47. Given that the proposal would retain a generous frontage and a recessed position relative to No 47, together with the subordinate side garage element, it would not appear as an incongruous addition to the street scene. The proposal would also infill a part of the rear garden extending broadly up to the existing rear building line while preserving a separation from the shared boundary with No 47 of over 1m.

The side dormer element facing No 43 would be largely screened from public vantage points and the windows and rear garden of No 43. The other side dormer and the proposed roof would be visible from the rear garden and side windows of No 47. However, the proposed roof would step down towards No 47 and the side dormer would be positioned at sufficient distance from that property.

Overall, in the context of the generous gardens serving the appeal property and neighbouring dwellings, and having regard to the separation distances, the proposal would not appear visually dominant or incongruous when viewed from neighbouring properties or from within the appeal site’s rear garden.

For these reasons, the proposal would be of an appropriate design in terms of its height, massing and bulk that would respond sympathetically to the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. It would therefore comply with Policy DM25 of the Lewes Local Plan Part 2 (2020) (the LP), which, amongst other considerations, seeks high quality design that responds sympathetically to the characteristics of the site and its surrounding area.

The Council also refers to Policy PT1 of the Peacehaven and Telscombe Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2030 (the NP) in its reasons for refusal. This policy, in summary, seeks accessible design and positive impacts having regard to the local landscape, the setting of the national park, coastal areas and other local environmental assets. It also expects proposals to incorporate opportunities to address climate change and to consider the Peacehaven and [name] (the [name]). [name] am satisfied that the proposal would not conflict with Policy PT1 in general terms, I have not been directed to any specific wording within the policy that relates to the Council’s reasons for refusal. Furthermore, I have not been provided with the [name] and the Council’s officer’s report does not refer to it. Consequently, Policy PT1 has not been determinative in my consideration of this main issue.

The footprint of the existing dwelling sits well behind that of No 47 and on slightly lower ground. One of the side windows at No 47 faces the frontage of the appeal site. The other faces a narrow side space between the properties. The closest rear-facing window at No 47 is fitted with obscure glazing, and the other rear window does not have direct views towards the appeal site as it is set behind an element of the rear elevation. A garden shed is also located in the rear garden, immediately adjacent to the shared boundary and close to the main dwelling at No 47.

The proposal would involve an upward extension generally following the footprint of the existing property, except that it would infill an area of the rear garden close to No 47. The proposed roofline extending to the rear would also be set back from the shared boundary with No 47. The side window of No 47 facing the frontage of the appeal site would not experience a material change in daylight, sunlight or outlook, as its view would remain open across the side space towards the frontage of the appeal site.

The proposal would be visible from the other side-facing window of No 47. Nevertheless, any reduction in outlook, and any associated change in daylight and sunlight, would not be of such a scale as to be materially harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 47, given that this window currently experiences a restricted outlook across a narrow side space between the properties at present. The closest rear-facing window of No 47 does not benefit from unrestricted views due to its obscure glazing. The other rear-facing window, by reason of its recessed position, would not experience a material change in outlook or a harmful reduction in daylight or sunlight as a result of the proposal.

No 47 has a spacious garden and a garden shed close to the main dwelling, adjacent to the shared boundary. This, combined with the proposed stepped profile development, would mean that the proposal would have a limited perceived bulk and massing when viewed from the garden at No 47. The appellant has submitted a diagram indicating that the proposed roof profile would sit below a 45 degree line drawn from the top at the shared boundary. Having regard to the overall height, separation distances and the proposed stepped roof profile, the proposal would not harmfully reduce outlook, daylight or sunlight within the rear garden to the detriment of the occupiers of No 47.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not result in unacceptable adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 47, with regard to outlook, daylight or sunlight. Consequently, it would accord with Policy DM25 of the LP, which, amongst other matters, seeks high quality design that would not have any unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of outlook, daylight and sunlight.

The Council’s officer’s report cites Policies PT1 and PT5 of the NP in relation to this main issue. In addition to Policy PT1, set out above, Policy PT5 relates to sustainable design. However, I have not been directed to any specific wording within either policy that is relevant to this main issue. Accordingly, Policies PT1 and PT5 have not been determinative in my consideration of this matter.

The Council has suggested a set of conditions in the event that the appeal is allowed. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), and relevant statute, and have accordingly amended the wording of certain conditions proposed by the Council without altering their aims.

Conditions specifying the time for commencement and compliance with the approved plans have been imposed. These are necessary for certainty. A further condition requiring external materials to match those shown on the approved plans has been imposed. This is necessary to preserve the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.

A condition requiring the new first-floor windows on both side elevations to be obscure-glazed and non-opening below 1.7m is necessary to ensure adequate privacy is maintained between the properties. A further condition restricting the future installation of any first-floor window or door on the side elevations is also necessary to safeguard the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring dwellings.

The Council has suggested a condition requiring details of soft and hard landscaping in the front and rear gardens to ensure that the proposed development delivers an appropriate landscape setting, reduces the visual dominance of hard surfacing, and enhances the character of the area. While additional soft landscaping to the front garden, in particular, would potentially enhance the character of the area, as I am satisfied that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of character and appearance as proposed under the scheme before me, this condition is not necessary.

A condition to remove permitted development rights has been suggested by the Council in order to prevent further increases in height, massing or bulk that could impact the character of the street scene and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The Council’s suggested wording refers to [name], B and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. These broadly relate, respectively, to the enlargement, improvement or alteration of the dwellinghouse; additions to the roof; and buildings and other development within the curtilage of a house.

Nevertheless, there is no substantive reasoning before me to indicate that retaining these permitted development rights would automatically lead to unacceptable impact on the character of the street scene and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore, the PPG states that the blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small-scale domestic alterations that would otherwise not require an application for planning permission is unlikely to meet the tests of reasonableness and necessity1. As it is not the case that the proposed development would only be acceptable if these permitted development rights are not exercised in the future, I am not satisfied that it would be necessary or reasonable to impose this condition to withdraw those permitted development rights.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would accord with the development plan as a whole. No material considerations indicate that a decision should be made otherwise. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.