Appeal 6004648

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a balcony to rear at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application ref CA/25/01280, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall not be constructed other than in accordance with the materials specified within the application form and plans.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 790/01, 790/02 [name], 790/05 [name].

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers.

The appeal property is located on a steeply sloping bank that descends from [site address] to the sea, and other houses in the vicinity are similarly set on sloping land. This creates significant differences between the levels of houses in the area and, understandably, many houses have balconies or windows looking out towards the sea view. This leads to a situation where, whilst houses have balconies and windows facing towards each other, the difference in levels and the position of windows and balconies does not lead to a clear degree of overlooking between houses.

This would be the situation with the proposed balcony at Vistamar. There is an existing large window that looks northwards from the house, and the view from that is chiefly over the roof of the adjoining house of Yamba and across to the sea. There are currently some limited views to the rear garden and elevation of Yamba, with a boundary fence providing some screening to the garden.

The proposed balcony would extend from this window and look out in the same direction. Being a balcony and closer to Yamba, there would potentially be a greater degree of overlooking to that property and its garden. However, the difference in ground levels remain, and I could judge from the site visit the outlook from the balcony would very much be over and beyond Yamba. There would be some views down to the rear elevation and garden of Yamba, but these would be limited in extent and not to such a degree as to lead to a material change in the degree of privacy compared to the current situation. The size of the proposed balcony is relatively modest and will provide a sitting out area, rather than an overly large amenity space that might obviously be used intensively. The use of opaque glass to all sides of the balcony would further reduce the propensity for views down towards Yamba.

I note that the proposed balcony would create a relationship between properties that is similar to that seen immediately to the east of the site, where two properties known as Fidelis and [name] were granted permission in recent years, and include comparable balconies looking towards two houses to the north. I saw the two houses adjoining Fidelis and [name] have small rear gardens but for similar reasons to the current appeal – namely, the change in levels, outlook towards the sea, and fence – the balconies at Fidelis and [name] display a satisfactory relationship with their neighbours. This matter reinforces my view that the proposed balcony at Vistamar would result in an acceptable relationship between the house and with Yamba.

The proposed balcony would be an acceptable addition to the house in terms of scale, design and use of materials which would sit appropriately within the mixed character of the surrounding area.

The proposed development would therefore not lead to any material loss of privacy or general amenity to neighbouring properties by virtue of overlooking or disturbance. Thus, it would not conflict with Policies DBE3 and DBE6 of the Canterbury District Local Plan 2017 which, amongst other matters, seek to ensure all development protects the privacy or neighbours and is compatible with the character of the host building and surrounding area.

I have attached a condition requiring the development to be constructed of materials as shown in the drawings, to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and the use of opaque glass. A condition has been attached specifying the approved drawings in the interests of precision. The Council have also suggested a condition requiring 1.8m privacy screens to the edges of the balcony. [name] consider the balcony as shown on the drawings to be acceptable, there is no need for such a condition.

For the reasons given above I conclude the proposed development is consistent with the development plan. The appeal is allowed.