Appeal 6001876

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to erect rear/side raised terrace with stairs and 3.2m boundary fence at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/HOU/2025/02916, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no. 2904:627/001 [name] platform/terrace.

No development above ground level related to the construction of the raised platform/terrace shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development above ground level related to the construction of the raised platform/terrace shall take place until details of the fence and trellis to the southern plot boundary of the dwelling including materials, colour and trellis design have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details and retained as such.

During the course of the planning application, the proposal and description of development was amended to include a 2m high boundary fence with 1.2m high trellis above. The description of development in the banner heading above reflects the amended and agreed description of development and proposal.

At the time of my site visit, a door had been installed into the side elevation of No. [site address] (No.22) and fencing had been erected between No.22 and No.[address] (No.24). The door and fence appeared to accord with the submitted plan. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the plan.

The main issue is whether the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No.24 with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

Policy ENV16 of the [name], Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015 (LP) states that development proposals should be designed to minimize their impact on the amenity and quiet enjoyment of existing residents. It goes on to state that development proposals will only be permitted where they do not have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of occupiers of residential properties through loss of privacy or excessive overbearing impact. Whether a proposal results in a significant adverse effect is a matter of planning judgement based on the circumstances of each case.

The door installed in the side of No.22 faces toward the side elevation of No.24. The side elevation of No.24 comprises a long rendered/pebble-dashed elevation adjacent to a side path connecting the front garden of No.24 with its rear garden. Within the side elevation to No.24 is a single window serving its kitchen, although the wider continuous adjoining room benefits from outlook to the rear.

Due to the level of the land, the window in the side of No.24 is raised above ground level. This window directly faces the blank side elevation of No.22. However, from this window there is an oblique view from part of it towards the door installed to No.22 and down into part of its outdoor amenity area. However, between the door to No.24 and the window to No.22 is a fence and a small tree. At the time of my site visit, the tree partly obscured views of the door to No.22 from the kitchen window to No.24 with the tree and fence partly obscuring views into the outdoor amenity area.

By reason of the distance between the window and door/terrace, combined with the angle of view, relatively small, glazed areas to the door and window, presence of the tree and height of the proposed trellis, any mutual overlooking between the window, path to the side of No.24 and the doors/terrace to No.22 would be minimal. In light of this and given that there are existing views between the outdoor space to No.22 and the kitchen window to No.24, the proposal would not result in a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.24 through a loss of privacy. This would be the case even if the tree were to be removed or died and/or if the existing blinds to the door to No.22 were removed.

There is already a level of mutual overlooking of parts of the rear garden/decked area to No.24 from the rear facing bedroom and kitchen windows to No.22. Such relationships are not uncommon in residential environments. As such, any additional overlooking from the small, raised terrace would not be significantly adverse. Furthermore, due to the small size of the terrace and outward opening nature of the doors, it is unlikely to be used as a seating area.

With regard to the proposed 3.2m high fence and trellis, this would form a continuation of the side elevation to No.22 and therefore continue the existing fairly narrow and enclosed area between No.22 and No.24. The fence and trellis would be directly opposite the blank side elevation to No.24 that extends to almost 2- storeys in height. Although the proposed height of the fence and trellis would be considerable, the area already has a sense of enclosure due to the presence of the existing fence, planting, and side elevation of No.24. It is noteworthy that the main useable outdoor space to No.24 is to the rear of the property.

I have had regard to the height of the fence and trellis creating an overbearing impact upon the area to the side of No.24. However, given the existing boundary treatment and given the length and height of the side elevation to No.24 and existing sense of enclosure, and given that details of the trellis can be secured by a condition to ensure it comprises gaps, I do not find that the proposal would have a significantly adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.24 through an excessive overbearing impact.

Turning to the effect of the height of the fence and trellis on the outlook from the side kitchen window to No.24, given the raised position of the window, direct outlook onto the blank side elevation of No.22 and presence of the small tree already restricting a more open outlook, I do not find that the fence and trellis would be significantly overbearing or oppressive.

It follows from the above that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No.24 with particular regard to privacy and outlook. As such, it complies with LP Policy ENV16, the aims of which I have outlined above. For the same reasons the proposal would comply with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The correspondence before me includes comments in relation to the planning process and disagreement between the appellant and occupiers of No.24 regarding the circumstances leading to, during and after, the planning application. For clarity, I have considered the appeal proposal on its planning merits, and it is not within my remit to consider other matters outside of this, including any civil matters regarding boundary disputes or trespass. Nonetheless, from the information before me, I have no reason to conclude that the proposed fence and trellis would not be on land owned by the applicant.

I have no substantiated reason to believe that the construction of the fence and trellis could not be carried out to ensure its suitable long-term stability, presence and safety in the case of strong winds. Furthermore, given the position of the proposal to the rear of No.22, and subject to conditions to agree the final materials, I find no harm from the appearance of the proposal.

Given the position of the fence at a lower level to the kitchen window to No.24, and given the separation distance, there would be no harmful loss of light. Furthermore, given the separation distance between the raised terrace and No.24 and position within an existing garden environment, there would be no significantly harmful noise impacts. It is noteworthy that the Council came to similar conclusions in these regards.

I have had regard to the suggested conditions put forward by the Council and to the tests in the Framework in relation to conditions and have amended the suggested wording slightly for reasons of clarity and brevity. As development has already commenced, there is no need for the standard time condition. However, a condition is necessary to confirm the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

A condition is necessary to ensure the submission of details of the materials for the raised platform/terrace in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

Finally, a condition is necessary to ensure that the details of the proposed appearance of the fence and trellis are submitted to the Council for approval in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area and to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.