Appeal 6001909

The appeal is dismissed.

I saw the development at my site visit, which appeared to accord with the plans before me. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular reference to privacy.

The appeal property is one of a number of properties within a terrace that faces [address] with long service yards to the rear, accessed off [address] next to where it meets [address]. The rear of these properties are visible from [address] and [address] and represent a sharp contrast to the predominantly residential nature of this cul-de-sac. Due to the depth of the plots, views of these properties from the cul-de-sac are dominated by single storey rear extensions and outbuildings/structures within the service yards. No. 55 is distinctly different from the other properties insofar as it has a 2-storey rear extension that projects a noticeable distance from the main rear elevation. I found the dominance of this extension at first floor level an incongruous feature that has an adverse impact on the quality of the street scene of the cul-de-sac.

By virtue of its size and location above a single storey flat roof extension and projecting forward of the 2-storey rear extension towards the cul-de-sac, as well as the somewhat utilitarian appearance of the timber screening panels in this location, the development is prominent in the street scene and this compounds the harm identified. The partial screening of the existing flue, situated to the rear of the 2- storey extension, by the development does not outweigh this harm.

There are other external staircases to the rear of the terraced properties that face [address], which are visible from [address] and [address]. Nevertheless, these are materially different to the proposal before me as they have open railings and are not enclosed by timber screening panels.

For the above reasons, the development has an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It conflicts with Policy BE1 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 (WDLP), which seeks new development that positively contributes to the character and quality of its environment through good layout and design. This includes reinforcing or enhancing the established urban character of streets, squares and other spaces.

The relevant reason for refusal refers to the Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (RDGSPD). However, as the development is not for a residential purpose, it is not relevant to this main issue.

It also refers to ‘Neighbourhood Policy KP13 of the [name] a copy of which is not before me. I note that the reason for refusal identifies that this policy, amongst other things, requires development proposal to demonstrate regard to heritage assets, their setting in the locality and must be respected in accordance with their significance. The Council does not identify any relevant heritage asset in this case. On this basis, and in the absence of contrary evidence, I conclude that this policy is not directly related to this main issue.

The development is positioned in very close proximity to the rear private garden of [address]. When standing on the development, which is fixed above a single storey extension, the timber screening panels were at a height where views directly into this garden were possible. Moreover, there were views towards the windows, particularly at first floor level, on the rear elevation of No. 26 over a short intervening distance. Consequently, the development has a very dominating impact on the rear garden and the windows to the back of the house, causing harm where a more private environment is expected.

A tree and other high vegetation are located within the rear garden of No. 26, which partially screen the development. However, due to the positioning of the development and intervening distances involved, I found that the vegetation did not overcome the harm identified.

It is asserted that the use of the development would be for maintenance only. The existing metal staircase and walkway, which do not form part of the appeal scheme before me, serves the rear elevation of the 2-storey extension including what I understand to be a fire escape door, and a metal ladder leading to the flat roof. The walkway is also adjacent to an existing flue. Images provided in the appellant’s statement shows the staircase and walkway prior to the development being carried out and it appears to provide access to the rear of the 2-storey extension as well as the flue. It has not been demonstrated why the development needs to be of the size it is to enable access to the rear of the building and the flue for maintenance purposes, or why the previous arrangement was not suitable. Moreover, if access to the development was limited, by means of a planning condition, its presence would still result in people, undertaking maintenance, standing in very close proximity to No. 26, which previously there would not have been. As such, the use of the development as a maintenance platform or, as considered by the Council, a terrace is not a determinative factor in this case.

The submitted plan indicates that the timber screening panels could be raised in height to address any concerns regarding overlooking and covered by a planning condition. However, this would make the development more prominent and subsequently worsen the harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Therefore, I conclude that the development has an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular reference to privacy. This is contrary to WDLP Policy BE3 that resists development that has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents. It is also contrary to the RDGSPD that includes a requirement that all dwellings should have access to outdoor amenity space that, amongst other things, provides a reasonable level of privacy.

In the absence of clear justification for the development, and that a less harmful option could not be achieved, I afford limited weight to the economic benefits associated with the existing business.

Whilst there were no objections from statutory consultees, compliance with the development plan in these respects is a neutral factor.

It is suggested that sustainable materials were used in the construction of the development, but this does not overcome the harm I have identified in the main issues.

It is claimed that the development has been in situ for more than 4 years. However, this appeal is made under Section 78 of the Act, and it is not within my remit to examine whether the development is lawful. It is open to the appellant to apply to have such matters determined under section 191 or 192 of the Act. The determination of such an application would be unaffected by the determination of this appeal.

A lack of enforcement action following the serving of the enforcement notice by the Council for the development, and the use of a neighbouring property as a guest house, do not alter my findings.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.