Appeal 3356224

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the addition of rear balcony with glass balustrade to match existing balcony and obscured privacy glazing to western elevation at [site address] , Hythe, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/1400/FH, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 240816.01, 240816.02, 260816.03, 240816.04 and 240816.05.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the balcony hereby permitted shall match those of the existing dwelling.

Prior to the first use of the rear balcony hereby permitted, glass privacy screens of a type that are impenetrable to sight shall be erected on the western side elevation of the balcony measuring 1.8 metres high from the finished floor level of the balcony. The privacy screens shall be maintained in place at all times.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No.25), with particular regard to overlooking and privacy.

The appeal dwelling is located within a row of large detached family houses whose rear gardens fall steeply towards the coast. This results in mutual overlooking from and between the rear gardens. The appeal dwelling occupies a particularly wide and deep plot and there is a spacious gap between the two storey side extension currently being built and the boundary with No.25. The dwelling at No.25 sits further back on its plot and projects beyond the rear building line of approved side extension. The two upper floor windows in the adjacent side elevation of the dwelling at No.25 are obscure glazed.

Amongst other things policy HB1 and HB8 of the Folkstone and [name] and Policies Local Plan 2020 (LP), seek to ensure that proposals do not have an adverse impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties due to loss of privacy. The council has also referred to LP Policy HB8. Whilst it does not specifically refer to privacy or overlooking, it states that extensions and alterations should protect the residential amenity of the occupants of neighbouring properties.

The approved side extension to the appeal property includes a bedroom at first floor level with wide patio doors and a glazed Juliet balcony facing into the rear garden. This facilitates clear views towards the coast and towards the side flank wall and part of the rear garden at No.25.

The proposed balcony would be located in front of the patio doors to the approved first floor bedroom and would be 1.66 metres deep. It would be enclosed by a low glass balustrade to the front and by a 1.8 metre high obscure glazed privacy screen on its western side which faces towards No.25. The proposed privacy screen would block views from the approved bedroom towards the adjacent side flank wall and side path at No.25. It would also materially reduce views into the rear garden from the approved bedroom.

Views from the proposed balcony would similarly be partially blocked by the proposed privacy screen and views from the front of the balcony towards the rear garden at No.25 would be partially blocked by the flank wall of the dwelling at No.25 and the existing boundary treatment and planting.

Having regard to the above factors, including the modest size of the proposed balcony and the reduced overlooking from the approved bedroom, I find that the proposal would not have a materially adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.25 due to loss of privacy. This is subject to the provision and retention of a privacy screen on the western side elevation of the proposed balcony. As suggested by the council this is a matter that can be secured through the imposition of a condition.

The council has also suggested conditions relating to the use of matching materials and adherence to the submitted drawings. These conditions are necessary to ensure that the proposed balcony blends in with the rear elevation of the host dwelling and in the interests of certainty.

I conclude that the proposal would not result in a material loss of privacy for the occupiers of No.25. Accordingly, the proposal complies with [name] HB1 and HB8.