Appeal 6002337

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 [address] (No.1), having regard to privacy and outlook.

The appeal property, [site address] (No.2), forms part of a short terrace of contemporary riverside dwellings positioned directly on the bank of the [name]. The terrace is arranged in a staggered formation, with each unit stepping out slightly in response to the river’s edge. The rear elevations are characterised by extensive glazing and projecting first-floor balconies, and several properties incorporate raised terraces at ground-floor level.

The proposal would introduce a new raised terrace at ground-floor level, creating a usable outdoor space. Although lower than the first-floor balcony at No.2, the terrace would still sit at a slightly higher level than No.1’s terrace. From this elevated and much closer position, there would be the potential for direct and intimate eye-level views towards No.1’s terrace, particularly when users of that terrace are standing or moving around.

A privacy screen is proposed along part of the boundary to mitigate these closer and more direct views. However, it steps down in height as it extends away from the dwelling and provides no additional screening above the neighbour’s wall once the staggered formation of the proposed terrace ends. As a result, a notable portion of No.1’s terrace would not be fully screened from lateral views from the appeal site, particularly when occupants of No.1 are standing.

Fixed bench seating is also proposed to discourage standing close to the boundary. However, this would not prevent occupants from standing elsewhere on the terrace and looking over the lower section of the privacy screen. Accordingly, the mitigation measures would not sufficiently prevent the potential for close and intrusive views from arising in practice.

When considered cumulatively with the existing first-floor balcony at No.2, the introduction of a second, lower vantage point would materially intensify the overall degree of overlooking. The balcony already allows occasional downward, oblique views, and brief views are also possible from the existing external staircase. However, the proposed terrace, being both closer to and higher than No.1’s terrace, would introduce a further and more intimate source of intervisibility at eye level. Taken together, the limited mitigation and the addition of a second vantage point would result in a materially greater loss of privacy for the occupiers of No.1 than currently exists.

A taller or more extensive privacy screen could mitigate the impact, but I must determine the appeal on the basis of the scheme before me, not on potential amendments that could be made.

The appellant also refers to the ground-floor window and Juliet balcony, which form part of the appeal proposal but have already been confirmed as permitted development through a certificate of lawfulness and could therefore be implemented independently. This establishes a fallback for that element alone. While the Juliet balcony would allow some overlooking, it would not create an external platform or any space for regular outdoor use, and any intervisibility would be more limited. By contrast, the raised terrace would provide a usable area from which prolonged views could be obtained. The fallback would not therefore result in a similar degree of intrusion and does not alter my overall judgement.

In terms of outlook, the privacy screen would be modest in both height and extent, and the proposed terrace structure itself would remain predominantly lightweight and visually permeable. When seen from No.1, the combination of the screen’s limited scale, the open design of the terrace, and the arrangement of the dwellings would prevent the proposal from appearing unduly dominant or visually oppressive. The development would not materially introduce a sense of enclosure to the occupiers of No.1.

For these reasons, the proposed development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.1, having regard to privacy. Consequently, it conflicts with Policies DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2019), which seek to ensure high standards of residential amenity. The proposal also conflicts with the Householder Planning and Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2020), which provides guidance on the application of the aforementioned development plan policies.

I have considered all other matters raised by the appellant and interested parties. These include the suggested private benefits to the appellant’s living conditions, such as improved usability of their outdoor space, safer access arrangements and enhanced enjoyment of the river frontage. I have also had regard to references to other terraces within the wider development, including the fact that No.[address]. However, these are personal, historic or design-related points and do not alter or outweigh the harm identified to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.1 arising from this proposal. The appeal is determined on its own merits, and the other matters do not lead me to a different conclusion.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.