Appeal 6003534

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.

The above description is taken from the application form. This demonstrates, along with what I was able to see on my site visit, that the terrace is in use as such. The railings have oxidised slightly and thus have been there some time. As indeed might the access door to the terrace. That said, there is no evidence to suggest that either the use or these changes are lawful in planning terms. The retention of the railings goes hand in hand therewith. It is unlikely that one would use the space without them. The Council’s position on the terrace’s use is clear, and the appellant has responded. With these matters in mind, the main issue is the effect of the proposals on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with specific regard to privacy and noise.

The appeal building is a two-storey terraced dwelling. The single storey rearward extension supports the aforementioned terrace, which is accessible through a single door. The use of the flat roof leads to unincumbered views at close quarters to both adjacent neighbouring gardens along with wider views that wouldn’t typically be experienced. This is by virtue of the projection of the flat roof to give full side and forward-facing views therefrom, exacerbating the effects that would typically be experienced by a conventional first-floor window. Resultantly, there is a complete loss of privacy to users of both gardens as occupiers of wider neighbouring properties.

The terrace would be used as an outdoor amenity space in relatively close proximity to a neighbouring first floor window. Such during unsociable hours could have a detrimental noise effect on the occupiers of the room it serves. I do not however feel that this would be materially different to occupiers of the dwelling doing so in their existing garden which is not that much further away. This is a situation that could come to pass whether I recommend allowing the appeal or not. It would not therefore be, my earlier findings aside, a matter on which I would recommend withholding planning permission.

Both parties have referenced a similar terrace with timber railings at Number [address] (No 210). I have not been provided any further information surrounding the planning history or whether it has express planning permission. Moreover, the Council only reference No 210 with respect to its acceptability in terms of character and appearance and not its impact on the living conditions of neighbours. Additionally, this other terrace is set further back and is partially tucked behind a building, which limits the available views therefrom.

The appellant would be satisfied with a condition to install additional or alternative privacy screening. However, this would be not comparable to the existing situation and could have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. It would also serve to evolve the scheme beyond that which was applied for in the first instance and on which the main and third parties had an opportunity to comment. To accept further details without going through due process could therefore be procedurally unfair.

The proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in the manner I have set out. This would result in conflict with Policies LP2 and LP58 of the Hackney Local Plan 2033, Policy D14 of the London Plan 2021 and the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2009. These seek, amongst other things, to ensure the living conditions of occupiers are considered appropriately and protected from harm.

The railings clearly have benefits in enabling the safe use of the terrace and I do not doubt that they would comply with building regulations. That said, and bearing my findings in mind, the most beneficial outcome of the situation in the interests of the living conditions of neighbours is that the terrace is not used as such in its current guise. There is nothing sufficiently compelling to suggest that there is not ample space within the dwelling’s curtilage for the purposes of outdoor enjoyment, such that the space provided by the terrace would be more necessity than advantage.

Taken together, and for the reasons I have set out, I would ascribe moderate weight to these matters. Such that they would be incapable of outweighing the harm and subsequent conflict with the development plan that I have found above. This would lead me to recommending dismissal of the appeal.

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