Neighbour’s home extension will ‘undermine’ garden view

PLANS to extend a house in Henley have been criticised by a neighbour.

Mr Carr and Ms Vigor want to build a ground-floor side extension and rear extension at their property in Valley Road.

The proposed side extension would measure 43 sq m while the rear extension would measure nearly three sq m.

Works also include alterations to the fenestration and timber boarding to all elevations.

But Jane Bosley, who lives in the road, has registered an objection with South Oxfordshire District Council, the planning authority, about loss of privacy and harm to the area’s “residential character”.

She said: “The introduction of new side and rear-facing windows and glazed openings at ground-floor level will create direct and unobstructed sightlines into the principal living rooms and private garden areas of my property.

“The differing ground levels and proximity between the two dwellings would mean that the proposed openings, within the side and rear elevations, would enable clear visual access into the interior of my home and across the entire garden.

“This represents a significant invasion of privacy, which would materially diminish the enjoyment of my property and erode the reasonable expectation of seclusion that currently exists.”

Mrs Bosley added that because the property is on higher ground than her property, the proposed works would be “overbearing” along the shared boundary.

She said: “The increased massing and the extent of built form would undermine the sense of openness between properties and adversely affect the outlook from my home and garden.

“The joint design guide expressly requires that extensions and alterations must demonstrate that they will not result in loss of privacy or have an oppressive or overbearing impact on neighbouring properties. This proposal fails to meet that test.”

Concerns were also raised by Mrs Bosley about lack of “safeguarding” to neighbour amenity.

She said: “The cumulative effect of the side and rear elements, together with increased glazing, would materially harm the residential character of the area and the amenity of the existing occupiers.” To limit intrusion, Mrs Bosley requested for rear-facing windows to be fitted with obscure glazing and made non-opening below 1.7m from finished floor level and screening along the shared boundary.

She also requested for consideration to be made to reduce the depth and extent of the side and rear projections to lessen the impact on neighbourhood amenity.

The Henley Society, a conservation group, raised concerns about possible overlooking.

The town council recommended approving the plans, subject to “acceptable” reports and mitigation for window-to-window distances with neighbours.

The district council is due to make a decision by Tuesday, December 2.