Appeal 6000758

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant seeks to regularise the development already carried out, which differs from the design of that approved.

The main issue is the effect of the revised design upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] in respect of privacy.

The appeal site is a two-storey detached dwelling with attached garage and a modest porch. The frontage is comprised of a block drive and low brick boundary wall and planting. The rear garden has a mix of hard and soft landscaping which follows the natural slope of the land.

The site lies within a suburban residential area characterised by semi-detached and detached dwellings of two predominant styles, with relatively uniform mass and spacing. To the rear of the appeal site the land falls away to the [address] Allotments, railway lines and the [name].

A deck area and access stairway has been erected to the rear elevation which due to the topography of the land is raised above ground level. The deck area sits atop a flat roofed music room which extends outward from the basement. This lower ground floor room opens onto a patio area and the stairway to the decked area above.

A modestly sized raised planter and guardrail is proposed to be constructed in timber on the area of the deck farthest from the host property and adjacent to the boundary with No 144, to mitigate any loss of privacy.

The Council consider that the monitoring of planting would not meet the six tests as outlined at paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I disagree, whilst it may be onerous to monitor the condition due to the rear garden location of the proposed planter, I am of the view that an appropriately worded condition requiring the details of planting, maintenance and retention of the planter, would meet the six tests.

The deck area I observed extended to just off the boundary with No 144 and relocated steps to a side access door. As a consequence of these changes, a larger, level space for occupation has been created. Given the close proximity to the boundary activity on the extended deck would increase the perception of being overlooked.

The appellants had helpfully marked out the area to be occupied by the raised planter. However, even when stood at this point, I found that the planter would not fully prevent overlooking of the main living rooms of No 144 and I was able to stand and look directly into this primary living space.

I am aware of the comments contained within the [name] for 23/01213/FUL regarding the levels of mutual overlooking. However, I have based the decision on my observations of the site. Whilst recognising that [address] is in a built-up area where some degree of mutual overlooking might be expected, in this case the level of intrusion would be unacceptable.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address]. Accordingly, the development would be contrary to the requirements of Policy SDP1 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015), which seeks, amongst other things, to protect the amenity and living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.