Appeal 3305376

This is a Householder Planning Appeal and permission ref. PA20/08697 has been implemented. A more concise description of the proposal is a balcony.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a balcony at [site address] . The permission is granted in accordance with the terms of the application ref. PA22/04293, dated 5/5/22, and subject to the following conditions:

the permission hereby granted shall be undertaken within three years of the date of this decision;

the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the details shown on approved plan ref. 1801 2 B;

the balcony shall not be used until the 1.8 metre high privacy screens, shown on the approved plan, have been provided and these shall comprise obscure glazed or PVC panels which shall be retained in situ thereafter.

The proposed balcony would measure approximately 4.6 metres (long) x 1.8 m (wide) and would be attached to the rear elevation of the appellant’s enlarged dwelling. Notwithstanding the trees and shrubs growing within the garden of ‘The Bungalow’ and a tall fence along the boundary with ‘Chalcotts’, there would be some overlooking of neighbouring properties from the balcony.

However, those using the proposed balcony would be likely to take advantage of the attractive, distant views of [name] rather than peering down into neighbouring gardens. The proposed privacy screens would also limit the extent of any increase in overlooking.

Furthermore, as I noted during my visit, it is already possible to see into parts of the rear gardens of ‘The Bungalow’ and ‘Chalcotts’ from the garden of ‘Penmaykin’, as well as through the sizeable first floor windows/sliding doors that have been provided under permission ref. PA20/08697. In addition, parts of these neighbouring gardens are also likely to be overlooked from some dormer windows and an existing balcony on other dwellings to the east.

The proposal would be unlikely to result in any significant increase in overlooking or harmful loss of privacy for neighbouring residents. ‘Penmaykin’ is a single, private dwelling and those using the proposed balcony would also be unlikely to generate harmful noise or other disturbance to neighbours. I note that there were no objections from those living alongside.

The appeal site lies within an area that includes dwellings of different sizes and designs, with variation in the roofscape. Balconies are not an unusual feature within the area and the proposal would not be unduly conspicuous. There would be no harm to the character or appearance of the local area.

The proposed development would accord with the provisions of Policy 12 of the adopted Cornwall Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework that are aimed at safeguarding amenity and environmental quality.

In addition to the ‘standard’ condition requiring development to be undertaken within three years, in the interests of certainty a condition would be necessary specifying the approved plan. To safeguard the privacy of neighbouring residents, a condition requiring the privacy screens to be provided and retained thereafter would also be necessary.

Given all of the above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.