Appeal 3336879

The appeal is dismissed.

The development has already taken place. This has not affected my consideration of the individual merits of the appeal.

I have shortened the description of the development in the box above because the description on the Application Form is very long. It reads “Decking made of wood only (no concrete base), supported by wooden posts. Created to be level with existing French doors so that disabled elderly occupants (owners of house) can safely step outside into garden. One of the occupants is wheelchair bound and cannot fit the wheelchair down the side pathway next to the house in order to reach garden. Access to the garden would be beneficial quality of life and for occupants' mental wellbeing. Garden is steeply sloping so this decking has become a raised platform in order to remain level. Decking is 9 feet deep from the outermost back wall of the house. Short brick wall existing between [site address] and [address] (Council-owned) is unsound and currently in process of being assessed for repairs by Barnet Council, thus a wooden fence/rail was erected as boundary to the decking and not higher than the original brick wall that used to exist there.”

The main issues in the appeal are the effect on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] in relation to privacy and the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The appeal site is a semi-detached dwelling located on the northwestern side of [address] in Barnet. The semi-pair is no.22 to the northeast side and is in two flats. No.[address] is located to the southwest of the appeal site and is one of a pair of semis. The ground floor flat at no.22 has a rear garden which runs parallel to the rear garden of the appeal site. Both gardens are at a lower level than [address].

To the rear of no.24 at ground floor level there are two exits. There are French doors leading out from the main rear elevation and there are double doors with a horizontal window above and a small rear window. L-shaped decking has been erected across the articulated rear elevations but not quite to the full width of the dwelling. The decking is close to the common boundary with no.22, where there was previously a brick wall. The decking is accessed from both sets of doors. The decking extends approximately 5 metres deep into the garden at its deepest point. It is surrounded, where necessary, by wooden railings with a handrail and there is a set of wooden steps (about 6) giving access to and from the rear garden. There are handrails running down both sides of the steps. There are panels/cladding below the railings boxing in the structure. The raised decking is about 1.5m in height with hand railings about 1m high.

There is a narrow accessway to the southwest of the appeal site adjoining no.[address] running from the streetside to the rear garden. It did not appear to me to be sufficiently wide to manoeuvre a wheelchair from the front forecourt into the rear garden.

On the common boundary nearest to the rear elevations of no’s 22 and 24 there is a wooden panel which is higher towards the rear elevations and which reduces in height as the decking extends north-westwards into the rear garden. The appellant indicates that the wooden fence is not higher than the original brick wall that used to be in that location. No.[address] has fenestration and a door out to its rear amenity area and this serves a habitable room - a living room.

Owing to the depth, height and location of the decking it is possible to see directly into the habitable room on the ground floor of no.22. This is particularly intrusive when climbing up the steps which serve the decking. Views are clear and at close proximity resulting in significant loss of privacy for the occupants of no.22 (and any future occupants) when in their dwelling or when using the amenity space immediately outside their rear elevation. 10.The appellant has explained in evidence that there was previously a metal platform which sat just below the French doors at the appeal site and served the rear of the property. I have borne this in mind, however, that platform and the brick boundary wall have been removed, and I have assessed the impact of the new decking and associated structures on their own merits. I find the extent of overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupants of no.22 to be unacceptable. 11.I have taken into account the benefit that the current occupants of the appeal site derive from the decking in particular the wheelchair user who, notwithstanding the lack of level access from the dwelling, can access the decking and derive particular enjoyment and mental health benefits from being outdoors in his garden. However, those considerations do not outweigh the harm I have identified to the occupants of no.[address]. 12.On this issue, I conclude that there is significant harm to the living conditions of the occupants of no.[address] by reason of loss of privacy. The development is contrary to policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, policy DM01 of the Barnet Development Management Policies DPD (adopted September 2012) and the Barnet Residential Design Guidance SPD (2016). Character and Appearance 13.Whilst the decking cannot be viewed from the streetscene of [address], it is important that it respects the character and appearance of the dwelling which it serves. There are other raised patios in the vicinity of the appeal site, probably owing to sloping rear gardens. 14.Whilst the decking extends a sizeable depth into the rear garden and the wooden steps are prominent when viewed from the garden, the overall structure does not appear so dominant or overly large that it overwhelms the appearance of no.24. This is aided by the fact that it does not extend the full width of the dwelling. It also does not jar with the character of the dwelling and is made of materials that do not offend the materials used in the external surfaces of the dwelling. 15.Consequently, in relation to this second issue, I find that the development does not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling and would not be contrary to policies CS1, CS5 and CS7 of the [name] (2012), policy DM01 of the Barnet Development Management Policies document (2012) and the guidance contained in the Barnet Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016).