Removal of the installed Cabrio windows x 2 on the rear elevation and installation of 2 x 940 x 2520mm fixed and sloped Velux Windows with the bottom panel to have a frosted or opaque vinyl applied

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2026 by C Walker BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008269 5 Fairhaven Avenue, West Mersea, Essex, CO5 8EZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Brian Fox against the decision of Colchester City Council. • The application Ref is 252151. • The development proposed is described in the application form as ‘the removal of the installed Cabrio windows x 2 on the rear elevation and installation of 2 x 940 x 2520mm fixed and sloped Velux Windows with the bottom panel to have a frosted or opaque vinyl applied’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the removal of the installed Cabrio windows x 2 on the rear elevation and installation of 2 x 940mm x 2520mm fixed and sloped Velux Windows with the bottom panel to have a frosted or opaque vinyl applied at 5 Fairhaven Avenue, West Mersea, Essex, CO5 8EZ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 252151, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: 0137-A-901 Revision 00 (Location and Block Plan) 0137-A-900 Revision 02 (Proposed floor plans, roof plan and elevations) 0137-A-904 Revision 01 (Proposed roof window section detail). 3) The roof windows hereby approved shall be installed in accordance with the detailed specifications shown on the approved plans. Both the lower glazed panels shall be non-opening and fitted with frosted or opaque vinyl and these specifications shall thereafter be retained for the lifetime of the development. Background 2. Planning permission at the appeal property was granted for a ‘proposed rear and front extension, re-roof and loft conversion’ under application Planning Ref. 230920 on 15 June 2023. The development is complete, albeit not fully in accordance with the approved plans. 3. An application to vary this scheme was submitted under Planning Ref: 241634 and was refused by the Council. It was described as the ‘variation to previously approved scheme 230920. Reconfiguration and relocation of Velux & Cabrio windows to new first floor. Removal of existing French doors and replaced with new window. Retention of existing window at ground floor level. Relocation of Appeal Decision 6008269 2 entrance door to new porch to form covered entrance.’ This was appealed1 and dismissed on 25 February 2025. 4. An appeal2 against an ‘Enforcement Notice - Breach of Condition’ has been lodged in respect of condition no. 2 of planning permission Ref: 230920. The grounds of appeal relate to (f) the steps required in the Notice and (g) the time period for compliance. Whilst I am mindful that this is pending consideration, it is not a matter before me. Therefore, I shall deal with this appeal accordingly, confining my considerations as I have set out below. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to the potential for overlooking and loss of privacy. Reasons 6. The appeal site comprises a recently altered and extended dwelling located within a predominantly residential area. It fronts the road, with Seaview Avenue to its rear and is flanked either side by dwellings, including No. 7 Fairhaven Avenue (No.7). 7. In determining the previous appeal, the Inspector found that the two installed Cabrio rooflights on the rear elevation would give rise to a more intrusive level of overlooking than those rooflights shown on the approved plans. It was held that their design, which effectively transformed the roof windows into quasi-balconies, enabled a materially wider outlook and ability to overlook into the private garden of No. 7. 8. This appeal scheme represents an alternative to the scheme already approved and that has been built out. It responds directly to the elements that are unauthorised and takes into account the findings of the Inspector in the previous appeal. The key changes involve the removal of the two installed Cabrio rooflights on the rear elevation and proposes their replacement with an alternative design. 9. This revised scheme seeks to utilise an off the shelf product that would be inserted into the existing roof openings. These would be Velux sloped and fixed roof windows. Comprising two panes, the lower section would be a non-opening fixed glazed pane, sitting within the lower part of the roof, that the appellant has stated would be obscure glazed. The upper part would operate as a standard top opening roof light and is shown on the sectional drawing to be located between 989mm and 2060mm above the finished floor level. 10. The evidence indicates that the approved scheme included 5 roof lights on the rear elevation. Whilst in the previous appeal it was acknowledged that these have been installed lower down the roof slope than was originally approved, I am cognisant that the previous Inspector identified no material or atypical overlooking of neighbouring residents. I share that view. 11. Although the proposed Velux rooflights would be larger than those previously approved, the submitted plans indicate that their uppermost extent would sit broadly in line with the rooflights already installed and that they would serve accommodation at the same internal floor level, a matter I confirmed at my site 1 Ref: APP/A1530/D/24/3355674 2 Ref: 6008271 Appeal Decision 6008269 3 visit. Furthermore, the proposed rooflights would operate as conventional top-hung openings. Consequently, unlike the scheme considered under the previous appeal, there would not be the same ability for an occupant to stand forward of the roof plan and obtain a materially wider outlook than that already permitted. 12. Although the other rooflights installed within the development are centrally pivoted, the evidence before me indicates that there is no mechanism requiring this form of opening. Consequently, they could equally have been installed as top-hung rooflights. The outlook available from the enlarged rooflights would primarily be over the occupiers’ flat roof extension and private rear garden. Whilst oblique views towards neighbouring gardens would be possible, this would be broadly comparable to the degree of mutual overlooking commonly experienced within residential areas. In addition, the built form of No. 7 restricts views into its private garden. 13. Having regard to the viewing angles involved, any views towards neighbouring properties would be fleeting and incidental in nature rather than resulting in sustained overlooking. The submitted sectional drawing further demonstrates that the principal outlook would be obtained through the upper clear-glazed section of the rooflight. Despite submissions to the contrary, I am not persuaded that the increased size of the glazing would materially increase opportunities for overlooking or enable views from significantly different angles to those that could already be achieved under the extant permission. 14. In addition, the lower section of each rooflight would be obscure glazed, preventing direct views through that part of the window. Whilst this would provide limited mitigation for a standing occupant, whose eye level would generally align with the clear-glazed upper section, it would be more effective when occupants are seated or laid within the room and would help to reduce the perception of overlooking. Taking these matters together, I am satisfied that the revised design has appropriately addressed the concerns which led to the dismissal of the previous appeal and that it would not result in unacceptable harm to the privacy of neighbouring occupiers, and in particular the occupiers of No. 7. 15. Therefore, I find that the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to the potential for overlooking and loss of privacy, to be acceptable. It follows that I identify no conflict with Policy SP7 of Section 1 of the Colchester Borough Local Plan (2021), which amongst other things requires all new development to protect the amenity of existing and future residents in matters including overlooking. Nor is it contrary to Policies DM13 or DM15 of Section 2 of the Colchester Borough Local Plan (2022), which support residential alterations provided they do not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties, including privacy. Conditions 16. The Council have not suggested any conditions. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition to define the plans upon which my decision is based for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. Those plans clearly state the glazing specification to be used and that the lower panes would be non-opening. However, I have imposed a condition to ensure that these elements are installed as advanced and are retained as such for the lifetime of the development in the interests of privacy. Appeal Decision 6008269 4 Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. C Walker INSPECTOR