Appeal 6000338

The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for the retention of a raised rear decking (match preexisting) area with associated fencing along the boundary line and access steps down to the garden at [site address] , Barnet, Edgware [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0991/HSE, subject to the following conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 21041 HH3 01.01 and 21041 HH3 01.02 except in respect of the 1.5m timber fencing shown on plans 21041 HH3 01.01 and 21041 HH3 01.02.

The timber fencing between No. 14 and No. [address] shall be a 1.8m fence in height and shall be retained as such thereafter. The fence shall not be reduced in height or removed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The planning application was made as part retrospective. From my site visit I saw that a raised patio had been erected however further works would be required to be undertaken to comply with the proposed plans. I have considered the appeal based on the plans submitted rather than as it was on my site visit.

It has been brought to my attention that an enforcement notice was issued against the raised rear decking in its current form. I have not been provided with any Appeal Planning Officer 6000338 additional information regarding the enforcement notice, and it is not the purpose of this appeal to determine the lawfulness of the existing structure.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and the living conditions of the occupiers of 12 and [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal property sits within a row of terraced housing along [address], with long rear gardens that sit at a lower elevation due to the topography. To address this level change, the properties have stepped access to the gardens, with examples of raised timber decking/patio areas extending from the dwellings’ ground floor levels. [name]. [address] does not have a raised decking, it has a raised stone patio which slopes down away from the rear elevation.

At the time of my site visit, a raised timber deck extended across the full width of the appeal property, projecting from the ground level of the dwelling with steps descending to the garden from the boundary line with No. [address]. Some alterations to the raised decking are submitted as part of the proposal and, whilst the Council and appellant disagree about some measurements, I have dealt with the appeal on the plans before me.

While the neighbouring property of No. 12 features raised timber decking extending from a rear extension, the proposed structure would project further. The current prominence of the steps, located at the boundary with No. 12, exacerbates this prominence giving the impression of No. 14’s patio being much deeper than its’ neighbour. However, the relocation of the steps to the centre of the patio, which the Council have considered acceptable, would reduce this visual impact. The resulting projection would extend only marginally beyond the raised patio at No. 12, which would not appear as disproportionate to the host dwelling or excessive to the character of the rear building line.

Given the presence of other raised patios along the terrace, including at the neighbouring property, the proposal would not appear incongruous with the established pattern of rear development. Moreover, it is evident that a form of raised decking has existed in this location for several years and has formed part of the character and appearance of the rear building line along [address] over time.

For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal would not cause harm to the host property and the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy D3 of the London Plan (March 2021) (LP), Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the Barnet Local Plan (2021-2036) (BLP) and the guidance contained within the Residential Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2016) (SPD) which, among other things, seek to ensure development responds to the local context of the area and host building, with extensions remaining subordinate to the host building. Appeal Planning Officer 6000338

The dwellings along [address] benefit from long rear gardens which, due to the topography of the area, are set at a lower level than the dwellings in which they serve. The length of the gardens provides a sense of spaciousness and an open outlook from rear facing windows. High boundary treatments between the gardens and raised patio areas are a consistent feature along the lines of the garden. Due to the elevated nature of the dwellings, a degree of overlooking exists, which is partly mitigated by these boundary treatments.

Whilst the property at No. [address] has an existing raised timber decking, No. [address] has a stone patio located at a lower level to the ground floor, with stone steps descending to a lower garden level. A bay window at the rear of No. [address] to the boundary line with the appeal property.

The proposed boundary treatment along No. 12’s boundary would provide privacy to the property’s patio and would also prevent overlooking from the ground floor of the appeal property into the garden of No. 12. This arrangement would be no more harmful to the occupiers of No. 12 than the existing situation of marginal overlooking resulting from the topography.

Along the boundary with No. 16, a 1.5m fence and vegetation is proposed along the raised patio edge. Given the proximity of No. 16’s bay window to the shared boundary, this height would allow overlooking from the raised patio into the window, which would be harmful to the privacy of the occupiers of No. 16. The appellant has recommended a condition requiring the retention of the 1.8m fence, that is currently in situ along the edge of the raised patio. This would restrict direct overlooking into the bay window and lower patio of No. 16, thereby mitigating the harm.

Whilst a 1.8m fence would result in some loss of openness in views from the bay window of No. 16, this would be minor given the overall spaciousness of the property’s garden and outlook. The 1.8m fence would therefore not unduly harm the living conditions of No. 16, particularly when weighed against the privacy benefits of the proposal.

For the reasons above, I do not find the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 12 in relation to privacy, nor to No. 16 in relation to privacy and outlook. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy D3 of the LP, Policies CDH01 and CDH05 of the BLP and the guidance contained within the SPD which, amongst other things, seek to ensure development provides acceptable living conditions for neighbouring properties in regards to outlook and privacy.

A time limit and plans condition is required in the interests of certainty. A condition relating to the provision and retention of the 1.8m fence along the shared boundary with No. 16 is required to preserve their living conditions. Appeal Planning Officer 6000338

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.