Appeal 3353309

The appeal is dismissed.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 12 December 2024. There are no changes that are material to the scheme before me, thus no further comments were sought by parties. Consequently, I have determined the appeal having regard to the revised Framework, and any references are to this version.

At the time of my site visit, the rear spiral staircase was in situ, although not yet complete given that the vertical railings and handrail had not been fully installed. Nevertheless, the appeal is therefore being considered retrospectively and for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the proposed plans before me.

The description of development cited in the planning application form differs to that contained within the decision notice and appeal form. There is no evidence that this change was formally agreed. The latter more accurately reflects the scope of the proposed plans which were submitted, consulted upon, determined by the Council and are now the subject of this appeal. As no parties’ interests would be prejudiced, in the interests of clarity I rely upon the latter description for the purposes of the heading above.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the adjoining residents with specific regard to privacy.

The appeal site is a single storey dwellinghouse located close to the coast, in a predominantly residential location in Dymchurch. There is a mixture of single and two-storey dwellings in close proximity to one another providing a relatively tight relationship. The existing properties have a varied appearance in terms of style, materiality and design, including pitched, hipped and flat roof treatments. The appeal site is situated within a line of four properties that are single storey units all containing flat roofs. The proposal is for an external spiral staircase, which whilst not intrinsic to the character of the area would not appear as a dominant feature, given its relatively concealed and rear location.

The tight layout of the houses in the area provides a sensitive relationship and given the mixture of heights of dwellings there is a degree of mutual overlooking in the vicinity. However, the single storey nature of the host property and its neighbours provides that loss of privacy and overlooking from the upper floors into neighbouring gardens has been minimised, in this particular location.

The introduction of a rear external spiral staircase would provide an increase in overlooking at a higher level than currently exists, albeit this would be limited given people would generally spend little time on the staircase beyond that necessary to ascend or descend. The use of the staircase would therefore be occasional and transitory, so people would not have prolonged opportunities to see into other premises. Nevertheless, modest overlooking resulting from the staircase itself would be possible, and there would also be a strong perception of overlooking experienced on the privacy of neighbouring occupiers.

The external spiral staircase is a functional structure. The appellant highlights it would be used only to gain access to the roof for maintenance and repair. Be that as it may, the primary function of the staircase is to gain access to the roof of the dwelling, where unobstructed views of the neighbouring gardens would be achieved, whether intended or not. The permanent, unrestricted access to the roof area would as a result provide an increase in overlooking and notable loss of privacy experienced from this location. Whilst a degree of mutual overlooking is to be expected within a residential setting, the close relationship would create an unacceptable loss of privacy from the appeal site into private amenity areas of the neighbouring properties. This would be to the detriment of their living conditions.

The appellant highlights that the use of the roof could be controlled using an appropriately worded condition, to ensure that the access is limited to maintenance and repair works only. However, no suggested wording has been put forward by either party for such a condition, and even if said condition had been provided it would be difficult for the Council to enforce. As such, it would not meet the ‘six tests’ for conditions set out in Paragraph 56 of the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance1.

I have also given careful consideration in regard to the imposition of an alternative condition to secure screening at the roof level to mitigate overlooking and loss of privacy between the parties. However, given that this has not been included within 1 Paragraph: 003 [name]: 21a-003-20190723 the description of development, it would require planning permission and may have impacts on visual appearance. As such, I give this only limited weight.

Overall, the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect upon the living conditions of existing residents, with particular regard to loss of privacy and overlooking. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the relevant sections of policies HB1 and HB8 of the Folkstone and Hythe District Places and Policies Local Plan, adopted September 2020. These policies collectively seek proposals to protect the residential amenity of the occupants of neighbouring properties and ensure avoidance of unacceptable overlooking, loss of privacy and inter-looking. Furthermore, it would be contrary to the Framework which, amongst other things, also seeks a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of buildings.

Taking all of the above into account, the proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations to indicate that my decision should be made other than in accordance with the

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