Appeal 6000784

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

I observed on my site visit that the development has already commenced, though it has not been completed. Therefore, planning permission is sought on a partly retrospective basis and I have considered the appeal accordingly.

The Council’s decision notice is focussed on the raised patio area. I have defined the main issue on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the raised patio area on the living conditions of occupiers of [address] (No 54) and [address] (No 58), in terms of privacy and outlook.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached two-storey dwelling situated in an area which mostly features similar properties. I observed on my site visit that No 54 and No 58 have raised patio areas which extend from their rear elevations. However, these are setback and do not extend as far into the rear gardens as the proposed patio at the appeal property. Therefore, while some overlooking is likely possible from the neighbour’s patios into the appellant’s garden, this is likely to be restricted to in longer and less obvious views.

I acknowledge that the tall fences installed on either side of the patio would prevent overlooking of the patios and the immediate rear garden areas of No 54 and No 58. However, given its projection into the garden, its proximity to the boundaries and its height in line with the top of the fences between the properties, the patio would provide obvious and unobstructed views into the gardens of No 54 and No 58. Moreover, as the edge of the patio would be adjacent to the lower part of the boundary fences, overlooking from it would feel intrusive from the neighbours’ gardens. Due to the patio’s size, it could also be used for sitting out for extended periods, increasing the likelihood of its users overlooking the gardens. For these reasons, the patio would result in significant overlooking of the gardens of No 54 and No 58 and would be unacceptably harmful to the privacy of its occupiers.

Given their elevated position, the fences on either side of the patio appear somewhat noticeable when viewed from the end of the garden of the appeal property, and also from within the gardens of No 54 and No 58. However, they would not appear quite so prominent when viewed from the rear windows and the patios of the neighbouring properties, as these are at a similar elevated position as the patio at the appeal property. The fences are also lower in height than the rear extension at the appeal property which likely has the greatest impact on the outlook from No 54 and No 58. Given these specific circumstances, the fences do not appear significantly overbearing from the neighbouring properties and are not harmful in terms of outlook from these properties.

The appellant refers to installing obscurely glazed screens at the sides of the patio to prevent views towards the neighbouring properties, the details of which could be secured by condition. However, this seems to be in response to the Council’s concerns regarding outlook, which I have found to be acceptable. Therefore, such a scheme is unnecessary. But, in any event, the use of obscurely glazed screens would not overcome the overlooking of the main part of the gardens of No 54 and No 58 and the subsequent harm to privacy.

While the appellant states that the patio is required due to ground level changes, this does not justify the patio of this form and the harm that would arise from it. Similarly, that the patio would be constructed in materials to match the dwelling would not alleviate the harm to living conditions. Consequently, these matters do not alter my findings on the appeal overall.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would be significantly harmful to the living conditions of occupiers of No 54 and No 58, in terms of privacy and overlooking. It would be contrary to Policy P14 of the Solihull Local Plan 2013, which amongst other matters, requires that developments respect the amenity of existing and proposed occupiers.

The absence of objections from consultees is a neutral factor which does not justify the proposed development.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which would outweigh this conflict. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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