Appeal 6006863

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey rear extension at [site address] , Christchurch, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/04694/HOU subject to the conditions set out in Schedule 1.

The condition provided by the Council, in the LPA questionnaire, to secure obscured glazing in the proposed window at first floor level on the side elevation of the proposed extension facing Number 11, lacked precision and the parties were invited to submit representations regarding this matter. Following receipt of representations from both parties, Condition 4 in Schedule 1 has been revised from that originally submitted to secure the required precision.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupants of No [address] (No 15), with regard to outlook and whether there are any other material considerations that indicate otherwise that permission should be granted.

The appeal dwelling is a two-storey detached house, set forward in its plot in comparison with adjacent properties. There is an existing small projection to the rear. The proposal is a two-storey rear extension, across the full width of the dwelling.

The proposed development would not extend as far as the two-storey rear elevations of the adjoining properties, however it would extend in front of one first floor and two ground floor windows in the side elevation of No 15. The window on the first floor of No 15 is obscured. The space between each dwelling and the shared boundary is narrow, sufficient only for pedestrian access. There is a high hedge along the boundary between Nos 13 and [address] and the outlook from the ground floor windows is therefore already limited.

The proposal would adversely affect the limited outlook from the ground floor windows, such that a short distance beyond the hedge there would be a two-storey wall in front of the windows, which would appear overbearing. The proposal would thereby harm the living conditions of occupants of No 15.

That said, it is not in dispute between the parties that there is an extant planning permission at the appeal site for a two-storey rear extension, granted on the 26 September 20251 (the 2025 permission). Given planning permission has been obtained, I consider it highly likely that the 2025 permission would be implemented if the current appeal is dismissed. Consequently, it represents a realistic fallback position. However, the degree of weight to be given to the fallback scheme depends on whether it would be equally or more harmful than the scheme proposed.

The primary differences between the appeal proposal and the fallback position are that for the appeal proposal, the side elevation adjacent to No 15 would move marginally closer to the shared boundary and the ridge height would increase by 10cm (using the calculation from both parties), but the eaves height would remain the same. The Council accept that the difference between the two schemes is relatively modest but consider that the differences tip the balance into more harmful impact.

The proposal and the fallback scheme would both add to the height, scale and massing of the appeal property. The proposed eaves height would be the same as that in the fallback scheme and the roof would be hipped away from No.15. In my view, despite the slightly closer proximity to No 15 and the marginally higher ridge height compared to the fallback scheme, given the boundary treatment between the properties, the proposal would not be perceptively different to the fallback scheme. There would be no discernibly different outcome to the living conditions of No 15 with regard to outlook. As such, I have given the fallback scheme a material consideration of significant weight.

Overall, elements of the appeal proposal would be contrary to Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 – [name] (2014) which requires development to be compatible with its surroundings in scale and in relationship to nearby properties including minimising general disturbance to amenity. However, there are material considerations which outweigh the identified conflict with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.

The Council has indicated the conditions it considers necessary in their Questionnaire which I have considered against the tests of paragraph 57 of the Framework and advice provided in Planning Practice Guidance. A condition relating to time limits is necessary in the interests of certainty.

A condition is necessary for materials to be used in the development in order to maintain the character and appearance of the area. 1 [name]: P/25/02780/HOU

A condition is necessary for obscured glass to be used in the proposed first floor window on the side elevation of the proposed extension facing No [address] to prevent direct overlooking of the neighbouring garden.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

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 drawing nos: MBA/000/104 [name]/000/105 [name]/000/106 [name].

The development hereby permitted shall only be constructed of materials the details of which are set out on the planning application form.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied unless the window at first floor on the side elevation of the extension facing Number 11, as shown on approved plan MBA/000/106 [name], has first been fitted with obscured glazing which conforms with or exceeds [name] 3 (or an equivalent level in any replacement standard) and the window is either a fixed light or hung in such a way as to ensure that the full benefit of the obscured glazing in inhibiting overlooking is at all time maintained. The window shall thereafter at all times be retained in a manner that fully accords with the specifications of this condition.