Appeal 6003047

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to Install balcony to second floor rear (retrospective) at [address], [name], Southend-on-Sea [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/01093/FULH and subject to the following conditions:

The development shall only be retained in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, [name] 100 Site Plan, E01, E02, [name] 101, [name] 102.

Notwithstanding the plans submitted and otherwise hereby approved, within three (3) calendar months of the date of this decision, full details of a 1.8m high privacy screen to be erected on the southern flank boundary of the balcony hereby approved shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority under the terms of this condition. The use of the balcony shall cease unless and until, the approved privacy screen is installed to the southern flank boundary of the balcony hereby approved within six (6) calendar months of the details of the screen having been approved by the local planning authority under the terms of this condition. The privacy screen shall be maintained thereafter, as approved for the lifetime of the development.

The appeal property is one of a row of detached properties with various extensions and rear projections that sit next to one another within garden plots. The appellant sought planning permission retrospectively for a balcony, enclosed by a glass balustrade, located on the flat roof of the first floor rear extension.

The Council is satisfied that the development’s siting and separation distance from neighbouring dwellings and gardens avoids a harmful impact on living conditions for nearby residences, except for [address] (No 52). It considers occupiers at No 52 would experience a loss of privacy unless a privacy screen is fitted at the southern flank boundary - which I have taken to refer to the ‘[name] mentioned on the drawings before me.

To address that concern, [name] 2 sets out a timetable for the submission and approval of a privacy screen and its subsequent implementation, whilst prohibiting the use of the balcony in the meantime. The appellant considers that the timetable set out by the Council is not sufficient and, should the condition not be removed, it should be varied to allow further time for procuring a suitable screen.

Having regard to the above, the main issues are: • the effect of removing [name] 2 on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No 52, with particular regard to privacy; and, • the effect of varying [name] 2 on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No 52, with particular regard to privacy.

The Council’s Design and [name] (2009) (DTG) states that where new balconies are proposed on existing buildings, care needs to be taken to ensure that, amongst other considerations, the privacy of neighbours is not compromised. It provides general support for the use of obscure screens to prevent overlooking.

Prior to the construction of the balcony, the windows at the first floor of the appeal property still allowed a degree of overlooking onto the rear garden at No 52. However, outlook from those windows is primarily over the appeal site’s garden and they provide more oblique views over the parts of No 52’s garden furthest away from the dwelling.

The balcony projects out beyond the rear elevation of the main building at No 52, and its elevated position permits views over its side walls and an extensive area of the rear garden. The most private and intensively used area of No 52’s garden is likely to be that closest to the house, where the evidence shows there to be a patio area. Therefore, the direct and unobstructed views from the elevated position provided by the appeal scheme into this part of the neighbouring garden result in harmful loss of privacy to users of that patio area. For this reason, privacy screening would be necessary to avoid unacceptably compromising the privacy of neighbouring occupiers at No 52.

Above ground floor level, the side wall of No 52 facing the appeal site contains no windows. A single ground floor window, located within the rear extension, faces the appeal site. As a generous distance separates that window from the appeal building, use of the balcony would not compromise the privacy of occupiers using that room. However, that does not justify the harm that would arise in respect of overlooking to the patio area.

The appellant indicates that the appeal scheme has already been in place for some 8 years and that no complaints have been made in regard to privacy. Indeed, letters of support were provided from neighbours, including occupiers of No 52. Whilst current occupiers may not object to the appeal scheme, occupiers could change over time, and I must assess the standard of privacy on an objective basis.

For the reasons given, the removal of [name] 2 would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No 52, with particular regard to privacy. The development without a condition that requires a privacy screen would conflict with Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Council’s Development Management Document (2015) (‘DMD’) and Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Southend on [name] (2007) (‘CS’). Amongst other things, those policies seek to secure good relationships with existing development including by protecting privacy for the site, immediate neighbours, and surrounding area. Variation of [name] 2

The appellant asserts that at least 6 months would be required for the fabrication and installation of a bespoke privacy screen, upon approval of a detailed scheme. Whilst there is little before me to substantiate why the 3 months period would be insufficient, I am mindful that the condition prohibits the use of the terrace until the approved privacy screen is installed. Moreover, the additional period of time sought would not be unreasonably long. Consequently, no significantly harmful effect would result during the extended time period for implementing the privacy screen as sought.

A varied form of [name] 2 to allow for this additional time would meet the tests for planning conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. It would remain necessary to ensure adequate privacy for the occupiers of No 52.

Thus, the variation to [name] 2 would not result in a harmful effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No 52, with particular regard to privacy. The development subject to the varied condition as set out in my decision would not conflict with Policies DM1 and DM3 of the DMD and Policies KP2 and CP4 of the CS.

The disputed condition imposes a deadline to submit details of the privacy screen within 3 months of the date of the original planning permission. That deadline has now passed and there is no indication before me that such details have been submitted to the Council for approval. Therefore, a condition in that formulation cannot be complied with. In such circumstances, it would be unreasonable to simply vary the original permission and impose an amended condition as discussed above.

However, under the provisions of section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, I may deal with this appeal on the basis that the planning application has been made to me in the first instance. With this in mind, my decision grants a new planning permission subject to the varied condition No 2, but that still requires details of the privacy screen to be submitted within 3 months of the date of this decision. In the interests of certainty, I have also imposed a condition which lists the approved drawings, taken from the Council’s decision notice of 7 October 2025.

Reference has been made to examples of similar rear balconies in the local area, including at [address], where no privacy screening has been installed. Be that as it may, I do not have details of those particular developments or their planning status before me. I have therefore assessed the appeal on its own individual circumstances and on the evidence before me.

I note the appellant raises concern regarding the effect of installing a privacy screen on the appearance of the appeal building. Nevertheless, the use of obscure privacy screens is broadly supported by the DTG and any such impact would be justified by the requirement for maintaining privacy. Accordingly, I see no reason that a suitable scheme could not be formulated.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.