Addition of dormer windows and chimney, replacement of existing garage doors with new fenestration

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 November 2018 by Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14th November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Y9507/D/18/3206931 The Coach House, Marley House, Marley Common, Linchmere GU27 3PT  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 Barry Bateman against the decision of the South Downs National Park Authority.  The application Ref SDNP/18/00704/HOUS was refused by notice dated 18 April 2018.  The development proposed is described on the application form as “Addition of dormer windows and chimney, replacement of existing garage doors with new fenestration. Minor internal renovation”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Marley House Lodge (MHL), with regard to privacy. Reasons 3. The appeal concerns the Coach House (CH), which has first floor accommodation in the roof and is one of a group of three closely related buildings. It is the subject of a planning permission limiting its use to being ancillary to Marley House (MH), which is a fairly large dwelling. MHL is occupied by staff employed at MH and it is indicated that the CH is occupied by employees or close family members. All three buildings are in the same ownership. 4. There is a patio and garden area to the rear of MHL which currently has a high degree of privacy despite the close proximity to the CH. There are two rooflights in the immediately adjacent building facing towards this amenity space. However, these are fairly small and high level so that they do not enable any significant overlooking. Any overlooking from the fairly large first floor window in the side of MH is towards the end of the reasonably deep garden. 5. However, the two new dormer additions in the part of the rear elevation of the CH next to the back garden would allow overlooking of an area appreciably closer to the back of MHL. That serving the bedroom at the end would readily enable overlooking of the patio immediately to the rear. Because of the undue proximity and elevated position this overlooking would be particularly intrusive. Appeal Decision APP/Y9507/D/18/3206931 2 Despite there being no significant overlooking into the living accommodation itself, this would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy. 6. The Appellant suggests that there would be no material loss of privacy because MHL is not a separate independent dwelling, being ancillary to MH as a result of its occupation by employees. However, the property comprises a four bedroom bungalow and the Appellant indicates that it has all the amenities for self-contained living. I am not persuaded that the employment of those living there in connection with the overall group of properties and site means that a lower standard of privacy should apply than might otherwise be considered acceptable. In any event, regardless of this there is nothing to show that MHL could not be sold and occupied independently of MH anyway. The fact that potential purchasers would be aware of the overlooking would not be a sound basis for accepting such an inherently poor relationship. 7. In these circumstances it is concluded that the living conditions of the occupiers of MHL would be harmed. The proposal would therefore conflict with the intention of Chichester District Local Plan – First Review, April 1999, Policies BE11, BE12 and H12 to prevent such adverse impacts. Taking account of all other matters raised, I conclude that because of the harmful effect on the living conditions of the adjacent occupiers the appeal fails. M Evans INSPECTOR