Appeal 6003481

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Whilst the whole development is before me, I will confine my consideration to the elements of the scheme that are in dispute, namely the patio extension and steps to the rear.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of 19 [site address] with regard to privacy and outlook.

The appeal property comprises a link‐detached dwelling within a suburban residential context. While it appears as a single‐storey bungalow when viewed from the front, the dwelling is of a split‐level design, presenting two storeys to the rear. The site is characterised by a pronounced topographical fall to the rear, which results in a degree of mutual overlooking between the appeal property and the adjoining link‐detached dwelling at No. 19. This is particularly evident from the small rear balcony areas serving both properties, which are positioned near their shared boundary.

As a direct consequence of its height and proximity, the proposed rear patio extension would increase and extend the opportunity for overlooking of No.19 above that which already exists. Its enlargement would allow for people to gather for lengthy periods of time at this location. In the winter months and poor weather this is less likely; however, in pleasant weather and when the days are longer the area would be an attractive place. Whilst there is a proposed privacy screen that would be the depth of the balcony, this would only mitigate the harm at ninety degrees and would not mitigate the harmful increase and extension in overlooking of the rest of the rear garden at No. 19. Furthermore, due to their height and proximity, the proposed rear steps, which would be increased in both width and depth, would allow unhindered and unmitigated views into the rear elevation of No. 19 and the rear garden at close range. [name] appreciate people are unlikely to loiter on the steps, the harm, even for a short duration, would be significant.

The proximity of the proposed patio and steps to the shared boundary, together with their height and the close relationship between these elements and the rear elevation windows and garden area of No. 19, would result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking and a consequential loss of privacy for the occupiers of that property.

I accept that the separation between the proposed rear patio and the shared boundary lessens the impact on overbearing at the shared boundary. As such I conclude that there would be no adverse overbearing effect on No. 19 from the proposal. However, this would be a neutral consideration that would not weigh in favour of the proposal and would not outweigh the harm identified.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with the [name], Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) policy ENV16, insofar as it seeks high quality design that minimises adverse effects on the living conditions of future and existing occupants within the development and close to it, regarding loss of privacy. Similarly, the proposal would conflict with the relevant paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), insofar as they seek high quality design with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

Whilst some elements of the scheme, may comply with the development plan those elements are neutral considerations which would not outweigh the harm I have identified. Similarly, some elements of the proposal may comply with permitted development rights; however, I have not been directed as to which elements and provided evidence to demonstrate how they would comply. Even if they did, these would be neutral considerations that would not outweigh the harm identified.

The appellant references other properties in the area that have decking/balconies/seating areas and conservatories that provide greater overlooking. However, I have not been provided any substantive detail of those developments that demonstrate under which development plan and against which policies they were considered. I cannot be certain that they even have planning permission at all. Consequently, I afford them little weight in my consideration.

I acknowledge that the appeal property is not within a Conservation Area and is not a listed building; however, these matters do not outweigh the harm identified.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.