Appeal 6003834

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to erect an external timber staircase to rear and install window and door to first floor rear at [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01475/FUL, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan and Drawing no. 3680/10/46 Rev 00.

The application form describes the proposal as ‘erection of external timber staircase and associated external alterations’. The description used in the Council’s notice of decision, which I note has also been given in the appeal form, is more precise. For certainty, I have used this in my formal decision above. I have deleted the reference to ‘part-retrospective’ as this does not describe an act of development.

At my visit I saw that the door and window had been installed at the rear elevation which aligned with the submitted plans. An external timber staircase had also been erected. However, the proposal before me is a modified form of this development. I have therefore assessed the proposal based on the submitted plans.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions for neighbouring occupiers at 27, 29 and [address] (nos 27, 29 and 29A), with particular regard to privacy and sense of enclosure.

[address] is a residential street, largely comprising properties of broadly similar scale and design to the appeal property, which is a 2-storey, mid-terrace house with 2-storey rear return that has been subdivided into flats. From the street, the area has a broadly uniform appearance and residential character.

The appeal relates to the flat at first floor level and the proposal would provide access to the shared rear garden. The rear elevations in this part of the terrace row is of a varied appearance with modest extensions of differing designs, as can be seen from the street at the short stretch of [address] that runs parallel with the site.

There is support for well-designed alterations and extensions in the [site address] Design and [name] (2009), which advises that the scale of extensions must be respectful to the scale of the present building, and that they tend to integrate better with the existing building where they have a subservient appearance.

The proposed platform’s floor area and surrounding balustrade would span roughly half the width of the rear wall at the rear return. Its height would be proportionate to the building’s first floor level. The staircase would project out by a modest difference from the rear elevation before being concealed from view at surrounding sites and from the small stretch of [address] where the varied rear elevations of this terrace are visible. The open space beneath the platform and the spacing between stair risers and balustrade columns would reduce the perceived mass of the staircase and thus lend a lightweight appearance overall. These factors would ensure the scale is respectful and its appearance would be subservient to the original building and surrounding area.

Given its function and the position of the external door, the siting of the proposal along the shared boundary would be a logical response to the layout of the subdivided rear garden area. This would minimise the impact on useable garden space and avoid leaving an awkward leftover space.

The staircase would be partially visible from the street at [address], and external staircases and landings are not common features in this terrace row. Whilst there are no comparable developments along this row, the proposal would be seen within the context of varied rear elevations to neighbouring buildings and thus would not appear incongruous with the terrace row.

For these reasons, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would comply with the relevant provision of Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Council’s Development Management Document (2015). Amongst other things, those policies seek to ensure that development reinforces local distinctiveness by respecting the character of the site and context, including through its scale, form and layout.

Although Council’s Decision Notice refers to the National Design Guide, it has not set out any details of the conflict it finds in relation to this. As its objectives broadly conform with those of the policies above, I find no conflict with this document.

The Council’s Design and [name] states that all developments and extensions must be designed so as not to give rise to unreasonable or perceived overlooking or compromise the privacy of an existing building or private garden. It goes onto say that proposals for new development in residential areas are expected to maintain an acceptable distance between boundaries and habitable rooms in surrounding properties.

The proposed platform’s limited size would not reasonably facilitate gatherings of people or storage of large items of furniture. Therefore, irrespective of how the as-built platform has been used or marketed to date, I am satisfied that the proposal would not provide a space that is particularly attractive or practical for use as an outdoor terrace or sitting-out area.

Users standing on the platform would be a short distance from the rear window of the adjoining first floor kitchen to No 29A. The Council consider this kitchen to be a “secondary room”, which I have taken to mean a non-habitable room. Based on my site visit observations, I see no reason to disagree with its conclusion in this respect. The platform would provide a stepping place to access the staircase, which would only be used momentarily for accessing the rear garden. Consequently, the proposal’s function and separation distance from this window would maintain an adequate standard of privacy for the occupiers at No 29A.

Although descending or ascending the stairs would allow for elevated views into neighbouring gardens, including those at nos 27, 29 and 29A, this would again be reasonably momentary in nature. Moreover, the views permitted over adjoining gardens would be similar to those that would have been possible from pre-existing windows at the rear elevation to the appeal building. Therefore, neighbouring occupiers would retain adequate standards of privacy when using those spaces.

As regards the sense of enclosure, the proposal would have a visually lightweight appearance. It would be exposed to view from the neighbouring garden space for only a short length beyond the rear wall, after which point it would be screened by the existing boundary fence. Due to its design, siting and limited scale, the proposal would not result in harmful enclosure of neighbouring gardens.

Concluding on this main issue, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions for neighbouring occupiers at nos 27, 29 and 29A, with particular regard to privacy and sense of enclosure. The proposal would comply with relevant provisions of Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Council’s Development Management Document (2015). Amongst other things, those policies seek to protect the amenity of immediate neighbours and the surrounding area, including privacy and visual enclosure.

Interested parties raise a number of concerns, including the loss of access to sunlight at neighbouring gardens and the effects of artificial light arising from an external light at the appeal building. The proposal before me does not include any provision for such lighting, however. Nor are these matters the subject of dispute between the main parties. I see no reason to take a different view, and therefore these matters have not led me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues.

I acknowledge concerns regarding litter, smoke, noise and disturbance. However, these issues do not arise inherently from the proposal and could reasonably occur within neighbouring gardens or properties in any event. As with concerns regarding the waste in neighbouring gardens, these matters do not directly relate to the proposal and so have not led me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues.

I note that Essex County Fire & [name] finds access satisfactory for their purposes. However, the matter of whether a fire escape is legally required has not been determinative, and I have assessed the appeal based on its planning merits.

In the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition which identifies the approved plans.

The development has already begun, specifically the installation of the window and door. Therefore, the standard time limit condition is unnecessary in this case. [name] have found that adequate standards of privacy for neighbouring occupiers would be maintained, the Council’s suggested condition to require a privacy screen is also unnecessary.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.