[2024] UKUT 00164 (LC)

The applicant cites paragraphs from other Tribunal decisions which explain the assessment, in those cases, of loss or disadvantage caused by proposed development which does not adjoin an objector’s property. But every application is unique and conclusions drawn on other application sites can be of no assistance in the circumstances of this application where distances, topography and design features will all be different from those considered elsewhere.

He says that the distance of 28 metres between Kestor and either of the dwellings proposed for plot B, and the screening provided by the 2m high boundary fence between plots A and B, mean that the development will have no material impact on Kestor’s privacy or visual amenity. The objector will already be aware of the houses at 153 and 155 Hillside Road, at a higher level.

The applicant also relies on the fact that the existence of the original dwelling (or its replacement) would block the view of a dwelling on plot B, leaving the view northwards dominated by the gable end of 157 Hillside Road which sits at a higher level than plot B. The impact of light emanating from plot B would similarly be mitigated by a dwelling on plot A. In any event, efforts have been made to keep glazing in the southern elevation of ND1A and ND2, facing down towards Kestor, to a minimum.

The objector is concerned that from his garden a 2m high fence between plots A and B, viewed above a 2m fence on the boundary between his garden and plot A would stack up to look like a 4m fence in total. He also believes that from the peaceful end of his garden the lights in the eastern elevation of a new dwelling would be visible. Mr Auld submitted that the fence may be a condition of the planning permission but is unlikely to be the subject of enforcement action by the planning authority, so enjoyment of the objector’s property is vulnerable to it being removed at some point in the future.

In his report Mr Jones considered that when viewed from Kestor’s garden ND1A, on higher land, would be a substantial and dominant building, which would cause loss of value to Kestor in the order of 8-10%. It was his opinion that if plot B were developed in isolation there would be a further impact on value of Kestor caused by concern as to what would happen on plot A, leading to an overall diminution in value from £725,000 of 10-15%. Mr Jones did not distinguish between ND1A and ND2 in terms of their impact, notwithstanding that ND2 is a single storey building and would inevitably be less visible from Kestor’s garden.