Appeal 3338316

The appeal is dismissed.

The deck is in place: this does not alter the way in which I assess the case.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • living conditions for neighbours; and • the character of the host property and the immediate locality.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached extended dwelling with a rectangular garden to the rear. It is in a locality of broadly similar homes and gardens which come together to create a neighbourhood of established residential character and pleasing appearance. The proposal is for a substantial rear deck.

The decking effectively runs to the side boundaries and significantly projects into the garden. There is no high level side-screening, which itself in any event might well have amenity issues for neighbours. From the deck it is very easy to see sideways over into neighbouring gardens and down the length of these rear amenity spaces. Whilst levels and disposition mean that rear gardens here never gain from full privacy or a complete lack of over-looking the deck in-situ takes this inter-visibility to a greater and unfortunately unacceptable degree. The overall impact of the development is one of uncomfortable impingement upon neighbours.

Saved Policy DG4 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 (LP) is relevant. Amongst other matters this calls for development to protect residential amenity. I conclude that the appeal proposal would conflict with this policy.

The appeal property lies within a Conservation Area. The Council raises no concerns on ‘Conservation Area’ grounds. I am cognisant that the there is a duty imposed by Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requiring decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. In this instance I am satisfied that the decking would be neutral in terms of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area; the appeal scheme would not run contrary to Section 72(1) of the Act.

Whilst not of concern in the ‘bigger picture’ of the Conservation Area I am not content with the aspect of more immediate character. In my opinion the decking does not sit comfortably with the form and scale of the host property or with the character and nature of a structure one would expect to find in this or close-by small-scale traditional gardens. It is disproportionate, incongruous and ungainly. There is not a sense of subtlety or a sufficient degree of being incidental and ancillary to the main dwelling and the rear garden scene. Regrettably the decking is out of character.

Policy CP17 of the Exeter Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2012 and LP Saved Policy DG1 are relevant to this issue. Taken together, and amongst other matters, they seek to secure development which is of good quality design; suitably compatible in form, scale and height to context and respecting local distinctiveness. I conclude that the proposal would run contrary to these policies.