Appeal Against Conditions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 December 2018 by Paul Jackson B Arch (Hons) RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 04 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/D/18/3214187 37 Brookes Road, Flitwick, Beds MK45 1BU  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.  The appeal is made by Mrs Mutz against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council.  The application Ref CB/18/02893/VOC, dated 26 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 October 2018.  The application sought retrospective planning permission for erection of one dwelling without complying with conditions attached to planning permission Ref. CB/17/03452/FUL dated 22 December 2017.  The conditions in dispute are Nos. 6 and 7 which state that (6) ‘Within 3 months of the grant of this permission the first floor windows (to bedroom 2 and to the master bedroom en-suite) in the front (north facing) elevation of the development hereby permitted shall be permanently fitted with obscured glass of a type to substantially restrict vision through it at all times and shall be non -opening, unless the parts of the windows which can be opened are more than 1.7m above the floor o f the rooms in which the windows are installed. No further first floor windows or other openings shall be formed in this elevation; and (7) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on th e submitted plans: Site plan; 002A (floor and elevations plans).  The reasons given for the conditions are : (6) to safeguard the privacy of occupiers of No. 35 Brookes Road; and (7) to identify the approved plan/s and to avoid doubt. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Reasons 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed removal of conditions 6 and 7 on the privacy of adjacent occupiers at No. 35. The appeal property No. 37 is the host dwelling for a new house built at an angle in a corner plot between No. 35 and No. 37. The intended precise position of the new dwelling that was approved under the original planning permission CB/16/00654 is unclear. What is agreed between the parties is that the siting of the dwelling as built varied from the original permission, leading to the retrospective application and the conditions now in dispute. 3. The windows in question have been glazed with obscure glass but retain top hung opening sashes on safety catches. They comprise the main first floor window to bedroom 2 and the en-suite shower room to the master bedroom. From the bedroom window, if it were to be clear glazed, the rear door and Appeal Decision APP/P0240/D/18/3214187 2 patio area of the adjacent property at No. 35 would be in plain sight. This is an area close to the house where the occupants would expect to be able to enjoy a reasonable degree of privacy. Moreover, the distance between the window and most of the rear garden of No. 35 is considerably less than that which is normally considered to be unacceptably intrusive. Whilst the view would be at an angle, it would not one which would require an unusual or awkward turning of the head. In addition, due to the position of the internal door, anyone entering the room would have a direct elevated view over the fence into the private area of the neighbouring garden. I consider that if condition 6 was to be removed, the siting and design of the new 2 storey dwelling as built would introduce an unreasonable degree of overlooking and intrusion for the neighbouring occupiers. This is very different from the situation in many places where adjacent, parallel properties face rear gardens in the same direction. 4. Turning to the en-suite, any potential view would be at a greater angle, but the internal door is also in a different position, creating the same potential difficulty, though less harmful than in bedroom 2. Here, the existing obscured glass has mutual benefits in also making it difficult for the occupiers of No. 35 to see the occupants of No. 37. 5. The appellant points out that no similar condition requiring obscured glass was attached to the original permission and that the change in the position of the house is modest and insufficient to justify condition 6. However, I have found that the potential for an intrusive impact on the privacy of neighbouring occupiers to exist for the reasons outlined above. Taking into account all the information and the plans before me, I give little weight to the argument that the potential level of overlooking is not materially increased compared to the siting approved by means of the first planning permission ref CB/16/00654. 6. To modify the installed windows to install opening clear glazing would be in conflict with the living conditions objectives of policy DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009), guidance in section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework of 2018, and advice in the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide of 2014. Condition 7 simply concerns implementation of the scheme shown on the application drawings. I conclude that the conditions in dispute are reasonable and necessary and continue to serve a useful purpose. 7. For all these reasons, the appeal should not succeed. Paul Jackson INSPECTOR