Appeal 6003905

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission PA25/04966 (‘the planning permission’) was approved subject to conditions, including condition 3, requiring obscure glazed privacy screens to be fitted on the northern and southern ends of the balcony.

The Council considers that condition 3 is necessary to protect the privacy of occupiers of the host dwelling and neighbouring dwellings known as [name] and Trehaven. The appellant argues that the condition is unreasonable.

Consequently, the main issue is whether condition 3 is reasonable and necessary to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of the host dwelling, [name] and Trehaven with particular regard to overlooking and privacy.

The appeal site is a dwelling with neighbouring properties of Trehaven and [name] to either side. Due to the surrounding sloping topography, [name] is set below the appeal site.

Whilst the balcony the subject of the appeal is not yet complete, at my site visit I was able to observe both the neighbouring properties and associated garden areas from the general height of the balcony.

Without the privacy screen the subject of the appeal condition, panoramic views of windows and the garden area of [name] would be available to occupiers using the balcony, although these are somewhat tempered by mature hedge planting. Similarly views into private garden areas of Trehaven are also restricted by mature planting.

However, given its height, people using the balcony would be clearly seen and noticeable from [name]. Even if vegetation hinders direct lines of sight, intervisibility would result in the perception of people being able to look down into formerly private areas and vice versa, and general overlooking. Such overlooking would be somewhat intrusive, and harm to living conditions resulting from this loss of privacy would be notable.

Moreover, I am not satisfied that the existing vegetation along both the site boundaries can be relied upon in perpetuity to provide screening between the properties. Any loss of the vegetation on the boundary with Trehaven would result in likely views from the balcony being available towards Trehaven’s previously private garden area.

[name] understand the boundaries may be jointly owned, vegetation could be removed at some future point, resulting in the loss of screening. Furthermore, vegetation is subject to variance as it is natural and will change according to season and health condition, as well as maintenance regimes. Additionally, any replacement or enhanced planting would likely take a significant period to establish and become effective.

[address] does have two upper floor windows that overlook [name], I observed that these windows are small and therefore provide a truncated view over the neighbouring property. Furthermore, occupiers viewing [name] from the windows are unlikely to be at the window for prolonged periods of time, as could be the case with users of a balcony, and therefore the perceived impact on living conditions due to overlooking differ substantially.

Other planning permissions in the area have also been brought to my attention, although the full details of the permissions are not before me. Nevertheless, it appears that overlooking in these cases involve windows, as opposed to balconies. Furthermore, they involve differing sites, with differing spatial relationships. This limits the equivalence of the other permissions to the current proposal. Moreover, the current appeal proposal has its own circumstances, and I shall determine it on its own merits.

Whilst there were no objections from the occupiers of Trehaven to this development, my assessment of the effect of the development would be unchanged and a lack of objections is not a reason in itself to allow development that is unacceptable.

Consequently, I conclude that condition 3 is reasonable and necessary to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of the host dwelling, [name] and Trehaven with particular regard to overlooking and privacy. Removal of the condition would conflict with Policy 12 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 which, amongst other things, seeks to protect individuals from overlooking and unreasonable loss of privacy.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.