Appeal 6006794

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear dormer, rooflights and raising the ridge height at [site address] , Brighton, Brighton & Hove [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref BH2025/02832, 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]-14267946v1 (titled “Location Plan”), TR_20_311 (titled “[name] & Loft Plan”), TR_20_312 ([name]) (titled “Proposed Roof Plan”), TR_20_313 ([name]) (titled “[name]”) and TR_20_323 ([name]) (titled “[name]”).

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on [name]_20_312 ([name]) (titled “Proposed Roof Plan”) and TR_20_313 ([name]) (titled “[name]”).

An additional drawing, [name]_20_323 ([name]) (titled “[name]”), has been submitted with the appeal, showing a cross-section of the proposal. In deciding whether to accept this drawing, I have had regard to the Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England (2026), which states that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and that what is considered at appeal should be essentially the same proposal that was before the Council and interested parties at the application stage. In this instance, the drawing provides supplementary information relevant to the main issue rather than constituting a design evolution, and it does not materially alter the scheme. I am therefore satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by its acceptance, and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with regard to privacy and outlook.

The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow within a predominantly residential area on [address]. It is set on higher ground than the adjacent properties on [address]. The appeal property currently benefits from a garden/terrace set on a platform spanning its entire southern side, with long-range views across Saltdean.

At present, it is also possible to see parts of neighbouring gardens and rear windows from the garden/terrace of the appeal property, in particular those at [address], which is adjoining the appeal site. While clear views of their rear gardens are not easily obtained from within the appeal property due to the sharply oblique viewing angle, the garden/terrace currently affords short and direct downward lines of sight towards a first-floor window of No 24.

The proposed rear dormer windows would be set back from the eaves within the raised roof. The bedroom windows would be in positions that would reflect the layout of windows on the ground floor. While the new windows would increase the opportunity for downward views towards the rear window of No 24, given their elevated position, they would primarily enjoy open views over the roof of No 24 and across Saltdean. Any views towards No 24 would be sharply downward and at an oblique angle. Such views would also be more indirect, as the proposed windows would be set in from the rear elevation.

Intervisibility between the garden/terrace of the appeal property and the first-floor window of No 24 already exists. The proposed dormer windows would be positioned higher and further back from the shared boundary than the garden/terrace is. This would thereby result in a longer and more oblique viewing relationship to the rear window of No 24. Given the oblique viewing angle and the existing intervisibility between the properties, the proposed windows would not create additional overlooking to an unacceptable degree that would be intrusive to the occupiers of No 24 or materially detract from their living conditions.

The Council expresses concern about the outlook of neighbouring occupiers as a result of the increased bulk and prominence of the proposal, but considers that such extent would not warrant refusal on its own. Nonetheless, due to the difference in ground levels between the appeal site and the neighbouring properties, the outlook from the closest neighbouring window at No 24 would largely remain unaffected. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook for those occupiers.

The Council raises no concerns regarding the new rooflights. Based on their position and nature, I see no reason to reach a different conclusion on this aspect.

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 24 with particular regard to privacy and outlook. Consequently, it would comply with Policy DM20 of the Council’s City Plan Part Two (2022), which, amongst other matters, seeks to protect existing residents from unacceptable loss of amenity and requires new developments to be carefully designed to avoid overlooking and an overbearing effect.

A Lawful Development Certificate has previously been granted by the Council for a loft conversion with side rooflights and a rear dormer at the appeal site. While the development has not been implemented, I am satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of it being carried out in the absence of an alternative permission if the appeal is dismissed.

Although the ridge height would be retained under the permitted development scheme, the potential for overlooking towards the neighbouring window would have been broadly comparable due to the similar placement of the proposed windows. Whilst the Council considers that limited weight should be given to the fallback position because the appeal proposal would increase the ridge height, the submitted sectional drawing indicates that there would be no change in the finished floor level of the first floor. In addition, the windows in the appeal proposal would be set-in from the rear elevation and would also have a higher sill height. In this context, there is no substantive evidence before me that the appeal scheme would create materially greater or more unacceptable overlooking compared to the fallback position. In any event, the fallback position does not alter my overall conclusion on the effect of the proposal on the privacy of neighbouring occupiers.

Concerns have been raised about the proposal’s effect on highway safety due to the potential increase in demand for on-street parking arising from the additional bedrooms, on the level of daylight and sunlight received, and on the character and appearance of the area. Given the nature and limited scale of this extension to a single dwellinghouse, I see no basis to reach an alternative conclusion to that of the Council.

There are also concerns about the potential impact on the safe pedestrian access of neighbouring residents with mobility difficulties arising from the potential increase in demand for on-street parking. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This requires decision-makers, in exercising their functions, to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. I have considered these matters, but they do not alter my conclusions on the main issues in this particular appeal given the nature and scale of an extension to a single dwellinghouse.

In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance, and relevant statute.

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 used on the construction of the proposed extension to match those shown on the approved plans is necessary to preserve the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would accord with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.