Appeal 6003290

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether Condition 3 attached to planning permission ref 24/1405/FH is necessary and reasonable having regard to the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at [address], with particular regard to privacy and overlooking.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling and detached garage within Bodsham. The exterior staircase subject to this appeal serves a first-floor workshop area above the garage. The neighbouring dwelling at No [address] lies immediately to the west of the staircase and raised platform area.

Planning permission had previously been granted under ref. 22/1524/FH for a differently configured staircase arrangement. The retrospective application regularised the repositioned staircase as shown on the plans and incorporates an extended raised landing platform adjacent to the southern side elevation of the garage.

The appellant contends that the reorientation of the staircase provides the same view of adjoining premises as the previously approved scheme and that the condition represents an attempt to retrospectively impose additional controls on an already approved form of development. However, I do not agree that the two arrangements would result in materially the same relationship with the neighbouring property.

The originally approved staircase arrangement positioned the stairs differently in relation to the garage building such that direct views towards No [address] during use of the stairs and landing would be limited. By contrast, the staircase as built includes an extended raised platform positioned more openly towards the shared boundary. Users must traverse the platform from the first-floor entrance to the top of the stairs before descending, thereby increasing both the opportunity and duration for overlooking towards the neighbouring property. The altered orientation also changes the direction of travel and associated sightlines from the staircase and landing.

The landing platform is elevated above the existing boundary treatment and is enclosed only by a relatively low balustrade. During the site visit, I observed that the existing boundary vegetation, fencing and neighbouring outbuildings provide a degree of screening towards much of the neighbouring garden. Consequently, I do not find that the platform would result in the extensive overlooking of the garden alleged by some interested parties.

Nevertheless, direct and elevated views remain possible towards the rear-facing windows at No [address]. Given the close proximity between the staircase platform and the neighbouring boundary, this would result in harmful overlooking and a loss of privacy for the neighbouring occupants even if use of the staircase itself would likely be intermittent.

Whilst existing vegetation and neighbouring structures provide a degree of screening at present towards parts of the neighbouring garden, those features do not fully prevent elevated views towards the rear windows. Moreover, the vegetation could alter over time, and the neighbouring structures are outside the appellant’s control and could potentially be altered or removed in the future. In these circumstances it would not be reasonable to rely solely upon the existing off-site features to mitigate overlooking arising from the development itself. In this regard, I find that the privacy screen required by Condition 3 is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

Without the mitigation secured through Condition 3, the development would result in unacceptable overlooking and harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at [address], contrary to Policies HB1 and HB8 of the Folkestone and [name] and Policies Local Plan 2020, which seek amongst other things to safeguard residential amenity and avoid unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy.

Accordingly, for the reasons given above, I conclude that Condition 3 is justified, necessary and reasonable.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.