Appeal 3326481

The appeal is dismissed.

The platform and boundary fencing has been erected, which appears to be as shown on the plans before me. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans, which also include glazed railings. I have not included the word ‘retrospective’ in the heading above, as this does not constitute a form of development.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

The site comprises a semi-detached bungalow with front dormer, in a residential area. The dwelling has a recently constructed single storey rear extension1 alongside the boundary with No. [address]. This approval also allowed for an external flight of stairs leading straight out of the extension down to the garden area.

The proposal is for a platform flush with the internal floor level of the extension, with stairs positioned sideways alongside its rear wall. It is approximately 1.7m high from ground level, and sizeable in depth and width. Timber boundary fencing extends its length, which at 1.5m high is significantly above the previous part wall and part fencing along this boundary. A glass balustrade would curve round the remainder of the platform.

The proposal would allow for outdoor congregation for extended periods of time. It is at such a high floor level that it would enable very clear overlooking 1 Reference 18/04298/HOU into the large rear window of No. 51, and the full extent of its garden. I find this would cause significant harm to the privacy of the occupiers of that dwelling. This is a different situation to that consented, whereby there would only be fleeting glances across the boundary when moving up or down the stairs. Although the appellant suggests the fencing provides screening, it insufficiently screens views from a standing position.

Due to its height, the fencing also creates an overbearing and oppressive feature sited at close range to the window of No. 51. The outlook from this room is restricted to an unacceptable level, to the detriment of the living conditions of its occupiers.

I note that the Council has raised no issue regarding any impact on any other dwellings, and I see no reason to disagree.

In conclusion, the development would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with particular regard to privacy and outlook. This would conflict with Policy DS5 of the Bradford Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017), which includes that development proposals should not harm the amenity of existing or prospective users and residents. It would also conflict with the Bradford Householder Supplementary Planning Document (2012), specifically Section 3 parts 10 and 11, whereby raised decking should not directly overlook the gardens or habitable room windows of neighbouring properties, and boundary treatments should not have an overbearing impact.

The appellant has invested in the property, which is a private benefit, and I find no issues with respect to visual amenity or access and egress from the site. However, the proposal does not positively enhance the local and wider area as they suggest, for the reasons as explained above.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. With no other material considerations outweighing this conflict, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.