Appeal 3279577

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the conditions are reasonable and necessary in the interests of the privacy of neighbouring residents.

The permitted development includes a single storey extension to the rear, and this appeared to be substantially complete at the time of my visit. It is proposed to vary the conditions so that a terrace can be created above the rear extension.

To address matters of privacy, it is proposed to include a frosted glass screen along one side of the terrace. This would be set back from the edge of the ground floor extension, and would reflect the alignment of the first floor side wall of the host building.

However, the screen would reduce in height towards the front of the terrace. Due to this design, residents standing to the front of the terrace would have an elevated view of the gardens of 4 and [address]. Even allowing for the set-back of the terrace from the site boundary, the elevated and wide-angled nature of the view would be unduly intrusive to the privacy that residents of Nos 4 and 6 could reasonably expect. Activity to the front of the terrace would also be apparent to residents of Nos 4 and 6, which would increase the perception of being overlooked.

The view to No 4 would require users to look round the screen, but this would not be to a degree where intrusive views of No 4 would be unlikely to occur. There is a significant degree of screening provided by planting within the garden of No 6. However, based on what I have seen and read, including the appellant’s Tree Report, this planting includes dense ivy the retention of which cannot be relied upon.

The Council also refers to overlooking of [address]. However, despite the proximity to the appeal proposal, people using the terrace would need to peer round the edge of the screen to an extent where this would be unlikely to occur. On that basis, a screen of suitable opacity would provide an acceptable degree of protection for the residents of [address]. However, this does not lead me to a different conclusion in respect of the harm to Nos 4 and 6.

The approved scheme includes a Juliet balcony serving the first floor master bedroom, which would also enable an elevated and wide angle view of neighbouring gardens. However, this balcony would be set further away from the site boundary, and does not establish a principle for a terrace of the extent and location proposed.

I have had regard to the appeal decision1 referred to by the appellant. However, from the details given, that appeal is not a direct parallel to the appeal before me, particularly in respect of the relative arrangement with rear gardens. Similarly, the balconies and terraces on other properties in the area do not reflect the particular circumstances of the appeal site. In any event, I have determined this appeal on its own merits.

I conclude that the amendments proposed would lead to significant harm to the privacy of residents of neighbouring properties, and in particular Nos 4 and 6. The disputed conditions are therefore reasonable and necessary in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring residents with regards to privacy. The appeal proposal would therefore conflict with policies DM01 of the Council’s Development Management Policies 2012, and policies [name], CS1 and CS5 of 1 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/W/17/3191062 the [name] 2012 with regards to the privacy of adjoining occupiers and providing an attractive environment in gardens or residential properties. The proposal would also be contrary to the advice of the Council’s Residential Design Guidance SPD2 2016 and the [name] and [name] 2016 with regards to privacy.

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