Appeal 6003254

The appeal is dismissed.

Development has already begun, in line with a previous planning approval, and is partially complete. At my site visit I observed that the timber decking had been constructed, but to a larger footprint than that subject of the current appeal. The proposed planter to the edge of the decking had not been constructed, but five laurel trees in root balls have been placed along the perimeter of the decking. An individual planter has been constructed adjacent to the existing copper beech tree, containing a sixth laurel tree. This tree approximates to the location of the end of the row of laurel trees proposed as part of the development.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring 15 and 17 [name], with regards to privacy and outlook.

The appeal site is a detached dwelling on [site address] , with a large garden extending to the south-west of the house which tapers to a point at its end. To the south and east of the site is modern residential development along [name], the rear gardens of which abut the boundary of the appeal site. The land falls away from the appeal site, which therefore sits in an elevated position relative to the houses on [name].

Planning permission1 for the erection of decking only was approved on the 24 September 2024, by appeal2, subject to two conditions: one being the requirement for approval of landscaping and interim screening measures along the site boundary. This was necessary to safeguard the privacy of the occupants of 15 and 1 Application Ref.: S.23/2328/HHOLD. 2 Planning Inspectorate Ref.: APP/C1625/D/24/3339093. 17 [name] (Nos 15 and 17). An application to discharge that condition3 was refused by Stroud District Council and was subsequently dismissed at appeal4.

The appeal proposal is for decking similar to that approved in September 2024, except that the length of the decking has been reduced by approximately 2m and it would not extend to the south-west point of the garden. The appeal proposal also differs from the previous application in that it now includes details of associated landscaping, which were the subject of a condition.

The previous inspector was satisfied that decking in this location would be acceptable subject to appropriate landscape measures being put in place to safeguard the privacy of the occupants of neighbouring properties. It therefore follows that decking of a similar nature, but of reduced area, would be acceptable subject to those same safeguards being put in place.

At my site visit I was able to observe the approximate extent of the proposed screening from the laurel trees, both placed on the edge of the decking and in the planter adjacent to the beech tree. Even allowing for lateral growth of the laurel tree at the end of the proposed row, there would be clear views to the first floor bedroom window of No 15 from the proposed furthest end of the decking. Due to the topography, the first floor window of No 15 is at around the eye level of users of the decking, which greatly increases the impacts from, and perception of, overlooking.

The proposed development would also potentially overlook the windows of habitable rooms to the ground floor of No 15. Those views are currently screened by a timber shed in the garden of No 15. However, in the absence of adequate, permanent screening at the appeal site, it would oblige the current and future occupants of No 15 to retain a shed, or screen, in this location in perpetuity.

Views into and out of the garden immediately to the rear of No 15 would be similarly screened, at the current time, by the shed. However, the garden area to the side of No 15 would be overlooked by users of the decking. Whilst this would be at some distance, the perception of overlooking would be increased by the elevated position of the decking, looking down into the garden. It would also impact on the outlook from the garden of No 15 and would be detrimental to the enjoyment of the space by users.

Both main parties agree that laurel trees would be an acceptable species to provide adequate screening, if planted in appropriate containers and properly managed. However, no details have been provided of the proposed planters to give confidence that they would provide suitable growing conditions for a hedge of the type proposed, which is necessary to ensure the living conditions of the occupants of both Nos 15 and 17 are not unduly harmed.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring 15 and 17 [name], with regards to privacy and outlook. The proposal would, therefore, fail to comply with the requirements of Policies CP14(7) and ES3(1) of the Stroud District Local Plan, 2015, which, taken together seek to ensure no unacceptable adverse effects on 3 Application Ref S.24/2077/DISCON. 4 Planning Inspectorate Ref.: APP/C1625/W/25/3364414. the amenities of neighbouring occupants, and seek to resist development that would likely lead to an unacceptable level of loss of privacy.

[site address] is a [name] listed building. It has been previously established that the proposed decking and landscape screening would not harm the setting of the listed building. I see no reason to disagree with that assessment.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.