Changes to glazing size

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 March 2021 by Peter Mark Sturgess BSc (Hons), MBA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: Tuesday, 06 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/X2410/D/21/3267260 291 Link Road, Anstey, LE7 7ED • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr J Barnes against the decision of Charnwood Borough Council. • The application Ref P/20/1650/2, dated 14 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 9 November 2020. • The development is changes to glazing size. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission granted for the changes to glazing size at 291 Link Road, Anstey, LE7 7ED in accordance with the terms of planning application REF: P/20/1650/2 dated 14 September 2020, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with plans No 20-11-01PL and 20-11-02PL rev 1, dated 4 September 2020. 2) Within 3 months of the date of this permission the glazed screen forming the Juliet Balcony shall be fitted to and retained in position on the wall of the dwelling as shown on plan No 20-11-02PL rev1. 3) The screen forming the Juliet Balcony shall be obscure glazed in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and retained in position thereafter. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr J Barnes against Charnwood Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Preliminary Matters 3. This is a part retrospective application. The window opening has been formed and glazing has been added. However, no opening doors have been installed and the screen which would form the Juliet Balcony is not in place. There is reference in the Officer’s report to amended plans being received. Nevertheless, I note that the Council determined the application on the basis of the plans that were received with the planning application. I have therefore assessed the proposal against the plans upon which the Council determined the application, and which are referenced on the notice refusing planning permission for the development. Appeal Decision APP/X2410/D/21/3267260 2 4. I note the appellant has made some assertions that the development could be considered as either a non-material amendment to the approved scheme or be classed as ‘de-minimus’. Whilst I note these comments these matters are not before me and I have to deal with the development considered by the Council. Background and main issues 5. The description of development used by the Council on the notice refusing planning permission is different from that used on the planning application form. This appears to stem from a previous application for the rear extension of which the appeal development forms part. 6. I note that the application for the rear extension as a whole was approved by the Council and that the larger window with the proposed Juliet Balcony appears to have been added during the course of the construction of the approved extension. I have therefore used the description of development set out on the planning application form in this decision. 7. The Council also refers, in its reason for refusal, to a large patio window. However, the Officer’s report in relation to the appeal application does not expand upon the harm the patio window would cause to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. Additionally, the plans of the existing appeal property, upon which the Council made its decision, appear to show the ground floor patio window is already in place. Consequently, I have not considered the patio window in this decision as it appears to have already been approved under the previous application. 8. As a result, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the full height window and proposed Juliet Balcony on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 293 Link Road. Reasons 9. The appeal site is occupied by a two-storey detached house which is in a street of detached and semi-detached houses. The house has had a two-storey extension to the rear to provide two bedrooms at first-floor level and additional ground floor living space. The two first floor bedrooms have windows which face down the rear garden whilst the ground floor living space has patio doors. 10. One of the first-floor windows is of conventional design the other is a full height window. This full height window is proposed to have opening doors and a lower glass panel across the opening. At the time of my visit the glazing was in place, but not the doors and the external glazed screen. 11. Both rear windows would have a view down the rear garden which would also take in views of the ends of the neighbouring gardens. The areas of the neighbour’s gardens closest to the house would not be visible from the window. Moreover, No 293 has a garage on its boundary with the appeal site which shields part of its garden from being viewed from the window which is the subject of this appeal. 12. I note that the glazed area of the appeal window is significantly larger than that of a conventional window. In particular it includes glazing from where a traditional windowsill would be to the floor of the room. However, given the size, style, and orientation of the windows in the original house this would give no more opportunity for overlooking the gardens of the neighbouring dwellings Appeal Decision APP/X2410/D/21/3267260 3 than conventional windows. Furthermore, whilst opening doors are proposed, the glazed panel of the Juliet Balcony, which would be fitted close to the external walls, will restrict side views which can be had from the window. 13. I have had regard to the Council’s arguments that the size of the window would encourage ‘prolonged’ use. However, the window would still serve a bedroom and there is no suggestion that the room will be used for any other purpose. I therefore have no reason to consider that the window will be used for longer than a conventional window. Therefore, it should not increase the amount of overlooking experienced by the occupiers of the neighbouring properties whilst using their gardens. 14. The development plan for the area consists of the Charnwood Local Plan 2011- 2028 adopted on 9 November 2015 (LP2015) and the saved policies of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan 1991 to 2006, adopted in January 2004 (LP2004). The Council has also adopted a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) covering design in January 2020. 15. Policy CS2 of the LP2015, amongst other things, promotes high quality design and seeks to protect the amenity of people who live nearby and those who will live in the development. The installation of the full height window and the Juliet Balcony, whilst introducing more glazing to the rear of the dwelling will protect the amenity of those who live adjacent to the site as it will only allow direct views to be obtained looking down the existing rear garden. This is similar to the existing conventional window at the rear of the property. Moreover, the addition of the glazed screen across the bottom portion of the window will assist in ensuring that the living conditions of the occupiers of No293 Link Road will be protected. I therefore find no conflict between the appeal development and this policy of the development plan. 16. Policies EV/1 and H/17 of the LP2004 seek similar outcomes to Policy CS2. I have therefore applied these policies to the appeal proposal in the same way and for the reasons given above find no conflict between these policies of the development plan and the appeal proposal. 17. The Council has referred in its officer report to the SPD. However, no explanation is given about how the appeal development would impinge upon on its guidance. I have had regard to the SPD in this decision and note that it states at paragraph 3.152 that transparent windows should not be placed on elevations facing windows served by habitable rooms. It is clear that the window with proposed Juliet Balcony faces down the appellant’s garden and not directly towards either of the neighbouring properties. Therefore, the development appears to be consistent with the guidance set out in the SPD. 18. Overall, I find that the development is consistent with the policies of the development plan and the SPD. Other Matters 19. I note that objections have been raised concerning the compliance of the development with the policies of the development plan and the SPD in terms of its design. Whilst the full height window would not be similar in overall size to the other first floor window it would be of a similar width and, with the lower glazed panel fixed outside the window, would ensure that it would retain a horizontal emphasis. Therefore, I consider that the development would be Appeal Decision APP/X2410/D/21/3267260 4 sympathetic to the existing development and not create an unsettling appearance to the rear of the dwelling. 20. With regard to the development setting a precedent for future developments of this nature, where planning permission is required, proposals have to be considered on their individual merits. Consequently, I would expect any future proposals in the vicinity to be determined in accordance with the material considerations applying to them at the time of the application, as I have done with this development. Conditions 21. With regard to conditions this is a partly retrospective application therefore I have to ensure that any requirements which result from conditions are implemented within a reasonable length of time. 22. In order to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the plans considered by the Council I have included a condition referencing these plans. 23. I have also had regard to the effect of the development on the privacy of both the occupiers of the appeal dwelling and the neighbouring properties. I therefore consider that a condition requiring the proposed Juliet Balcony screen to be obscure glazed is necessary. I require this to be installed within three months of the date of this decision. Conclusion 24. I therefore consider that for the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. Peter Mark Sturgess INSPECTOR