Appeal 6003466

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for installation of a modest south-facing first-floor balcony with obscure glazed balustrade and new French doors, to provide private external amenity space for the dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/P/1701/FUH, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: location plan, A101, A102, A104.

Prior to the first use of the balcony hereby approved, the obscure glazed screen shown on Drawing A101, shall be erected and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: - the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and -the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to privacy, noise and disturbance.

[site address] Eastcliff is a 3-storey dwelling occupying a corner plot which is stepped back from the neighbouring building to the south. The site forms part of a modern development of 2 and 3 storey buildings where narrow winding streets and varied building heights and forms combine to form a pleasant, high-density character and appearance to the area.

The application is for the erection of a first-floor balcony to the front constructed of powder-coated steel. It would be modest in scale and would be of a form and palette of materials which would not detract from the character and appearance of the modern host dwelling. The balcony would not project beyond the front elevation of the adjoining building and would be largely screened in views from the south. Given its limited scale, the balcony would not appear prominent in other street scene views. Given the presence of front balconies within the surrounding area, the balcony would not appear as an incongruous feature within the street scene.

Drawing on the above, the proposal would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area. The development would therefore accord with policy CS12 of the [name] (2017) (CS) and policies DM32 and DM38 of the Development Management Policies Sites and Policies Plan Part 1 (2016) (DMP) which require that extensions to residential properties respect the massing, scale, proportions, materials and overall design and character of the existing property and which require that proposals demonstrate sensitivity to the local character. In relation to this main issue I also find no conflict with the [site address] Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2013) (SPD) which has similar aims.

Given the narrow streets there is limited separation between the front elevations of the appeal property and the dwelling opposite (86 Eastcliff). Given this relationship, there is an existing element of mutual overlooking between the front elevations of the dwellings, as well as views of front windows from the public realm.

The SPD states that the privacy of neighbouring properties will normally be preserved by maintaining a distance of at least 21 metres between a proposed upper floor window and existing habitable room windows, and that, in the case of balconies, in order to maintain an adequate level of privacy for neighbouring residents, the required separation distances for these types of development may need to be greater depending upon the circumstances of the site.

The main parties agree that there would be a shortfall against the separation standards in the SPD. Notwithstanding this, the appeal property is stepped back from the neighbouring building, and the balcony would not be sited any closer to No 86 than existing windows adjacent to the site. In light of this and the siting of the affected windows within the front elevation where they are readily seen in views from the public realm, the development would not result in harmful levels of overlooking of No 86.

The balcony would be of such a size that it would be little more than an outdoor sitting out area, and its modest size would limit its possible use for social functions which might result in increased noise and disturbance. The balcony would be stepped back and set in from the adjacent building and the screen would limit the noise and disturbance that would arise from its use. Given this, and the fact that it is solely for domestic purposes for the enjoyment of the host property, there is no compelling reason to find that the activities associated with its use would cause a material level of noise or disturbance to occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Drawing on the above, whilst the development would fail to meet the separation standards set down in the SPD, in these particular circumstances, as the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties would not be compromised as a result, no harm arises from that conflict. I therefore find no conflict with DMP policies DM32 and DM38 which state that the design and layout should not prejudice the living conditions of adjoining occupiers.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to impose a condition that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. To protect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers a condition is imposed requiring the erection of the balcony screen prior to the first use of the balcony and its subsequent retention.

I have found that the individual characteristics of the site would enable the proposal to be accommodated without harm. However, I see no reason to suppose that my decision in this case would set a precedent. Differing circumstances would represent matters to be considered were other similar proposals to be advanced elsewhere in the future.

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