Appeal 3274681

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the disputed condition is reasonable and necessary in the interests of protecting residential amenity.

The appeal property is a two storey house located within [site address] . Located west of the appeal property and across from a narrow trackway which separates the sites, is the two storey property at Talsarn, and which is significantly set down at a lower ground level than the rear of [site address] and its associated rear garden area.

The submissions before me indicate that whilst the New Forest National Park Authority (the NPA) found that the proposed raised decking, balustrade and steps at the appeal site would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, the proposal would have resulted in significant overlooking and loss of privacy for residents at Talsarn and in particular with regards to the use of the rear external amenity space at that neighbouring property. In that respect and following amendments to the original plans, the proposal included the provision of a privacy screen which the NPA agreed would be of sufficient height so as to avoid unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy for residents at the above identified neighbouring property.

In essence, the Appellant has put it to me that the disputed condition should be removed and replaced with a condition that requires the provision of a privacy screen of lesser height at the western end of the raised deck area. In this regard, it is proposed that the existing privacy screen be reduced from a height of 1.8 metres with an additional 300mm of trellis on top, to a height of 1.5 metres whilst retaining the additional 300mm of trellis on top. It is maintained that the current height of the privacy screen interrupts views of the New Forest from the kitchen, conservatory and patio doors at the rear of the appeal property.

From the evidence before me and from observations made on my visit, whilst the proposed reduced height of the privacy screen would help ensure that downward views to the rear of the neighbouring dwelling from inside the kitchen, conservatory and patio doors at the rear of the appeal property would be screened, people standing and gathering on the raised deck area would still be able to see down and across the rear amenity area and garden space at Talsarn. Given the proximity to the identified neighbouring dwelling and due to the elevated position of the raised deck area, such overlooking would be unacceptably intrusive for existing and future residents of that neighbouring dwelling.

[name] note from the Appellant’s submissions that the permitted privacy screen would interrupt some views from the kitchen, conservatory and patio doors at the rear of the appeal property, it is well established that there is no right to a view within the planning system. Nonetheless, I have also considered whether the height of the privacy screen would unacceptably harm the living conditions of residents at the appeal property with regards to loss of outlook or unacceptable loss of light. In these regards, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, given that the raised deck area at the site provides open views to the south, I find that the existing height of the privacy screen would not have a harmful impact on the living conditions of future residents with regards to loss of outlook or loss of light.

In consideration of the above, I find that the NPA is correct in its imposition of a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the plans which include the provision of a privacy screen up to a height of 1.8 metres with an additional 300mm of trellis on top. The condition is reasonable and necessary in the interests of protecting the living conditions of the future occupants of the neighbouring dwelling at Talsarn with particular regard to overlooking and privacy.

The condition is relevant to planning and to the development, and is sufficiently precise, enforceable and reasonable in all other respects. The condition is required in accordance with the parts of Policy DP2 of the New Forest National Park Local Plan (2019) which, amongst other things, expects that development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on amenity in terms of overlooking. The disputed condition also accords with paragraphs 55 and 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2021) and with the advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.