Appeal 3278475

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. However, the appeal form gives a revised description of ‘replacement first floor rear balcony’. This is consistent with the description on the Council’s decision notice, and I consider it a more accurate representation of the proposal. I have therefore determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 18 [name] with particular regard to privacy and whether or not it would be overbearing.

In common with many properties on [name], the appeal dwelling has a first-floor rear balcony. This is stepped, with the main, deeper part set away from the boundary with 18 [name]. This neighbour is also positioned significantly forward of the appeal dwelling. As a result, while there are some views from the balcony in the direction of No 18 and its garden, I saw that views towards the rear of the neighbouring building from the closest part are at an oblique angle and are screened in part by the appeal dwelling.

The proposed replacement balcony would be of consistent depth, resulting in a significant increase in the depth of the section closest to No 18. It would also be of greater width, extending closer to the boundary. In combination, these factors would afford someone standing on the balcony closer and much more direct views back onto windows and the balcony to the rear of No 18 than currently. I acknowledge that existing windows to the side of the appeal dwelling face towards No 18’s balcony, but their orientation perpendicular to the neighbouring rear windows restricts opportunities for views into the rooms served. Views are also in part screened by the fence and vegetation to the boundary, and are not therefore directly comparable to the unrestricted and much clearer lines of sight to the rear of No 18 that would be afforded by the development. In my judgement, the proposal would therefore result in intrusive overlooking and would cause a significant loss of privacy for the occupiers of No 18 in comparison to the existing situation.

Given that the underside of the balcony would not be enclosed, and its fairly lightweight appearance resulting from the open railings around it, I am satisfied the separation to No 18 would be sufficient to ensure that the physical structure of the balcony would not be unduly dominant or overbearing. However, this does not outweigh the harm that would be caused through overlooking.

The appellant refers to an extension that has been permitted at 16 [name], but the very limited information provided means that I do not know the particular circumstances that applied in that case, and I am unable to draw any detailed conclusions regarding how it compares to the appeal scheme. I can therefore give very limited weight to this matter.

My attention has also been drawn to balconies to other dwellings on [name], including some closer to boundaries than proposed on the appeal site. However, I saw that opportunities for views from balconies at 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 and 19 [name] back towards neighbouring windows would be restricted by the position of Nos 10, 11, 12 and 13 on a similar alignment set back from No 14, and the broadly similar alignment of Nos 18 and 19 set back from the appeal dwelling. [name] 15, views from the balcony towards No 16 would be to its flank wall, and it is set so far to the rear of No 14 that outlook towards this neighbour would be to the rear part of its garden, with views towards the dwelling at a very tight angle and likely to be partly screened by the corner of the dwelling itself. I do not therefore consider the overlooking resulting from these relationships to be comparable to that which would occur under the appeal scheme given the position of the appeal dwelling largely behind the main rear elevation of No 18. As a consequence, I do not find other balconies in the locality to offer a compelling justification to allow development which would adversely affect neighbouring living conditions.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 18 [name] through loss of privacy. It would accordingly be contrary to saved Policy H14 of the Local Plan ([name] 2003) which includes requirements that extensions should not cause unacceptable loss of privacy to adjacent properties or significantly affect their amenities. There would also be conflict with guidance within the Borough Wide Design Guide 2020 highlighting the importance of privacy to residential amenity.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when it is read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that a decision contrary to the development plan should be reached. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.