Appeal 6005484

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council changed the description of development from that referenced in the application form. The revised description is more accurate than that proposed. In the interests of clarity, I have adopted the revised description of development, omitting reference to the retrospective nature of the development.

The application made clear that the scheme had been submitted retrospectively, the proposed development was in place at the time of my site visit I have dealt with the proposal accordingly.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers of a neighbouring property, The Mount, with regard to privacy and overlooking.

The appeal site is a detached property within a village setting. The property includes a first-floor glazed door which provides direct access onto the flat roof of a single-storey rear addition. The neighbouring property, known as The Mount, benefits from a large garden that wraps around the side and rear of the appeal site, placing it in a particularly sensitive relationship with the roof area.

From my site visit, I observed that the flat roof is capable of being used as external recreational space. The addition of a glass balustrade has formalised this space, providing a secure perimeter which facilitates its use. While the appellant contends that no terrace or balcony has been created, the presence of the balustrade nonetheless enables and encourages use of the roof as an outdoor amenity space.

The appellant emphasises that the roof and access door have existed for many years and that use of the roof forms part of the lawful baseline. I acknowledge this position, however, the determining factor is not solely the existence of access, but whether the development materially alters the way the space is experienced and used.

The installation of a safety balustrade creates a defined and usable area where occupants can stand, sit, and spend time with an increased sense of safety. This is likely to result in more frequent and prolonged use compared to an unprotected roof edge. Consequently, I find that the development results in an intensification of use of the roof area.

I observed direct and clear overlooking from the roof toward neighbouring properties, most notably into the garden of The Mount. Given the wrap around nature of that garden, users of the terrace are able to look down into a substantial proportion of what would otherwise be private outdoor amenity space. This results in a harmful loss of privacy. While the appellant notes the presence of existing intervisibility between properties, including views toward their own windows, this mutual relationship does not justify exacerbated overlooking.

Landscaping and the tinted nature of the glass could mitigate impacts, however, any screening would be unlikely to fully address overlooking from an elevated position. Whilst the appellant has placed trellis with faux foliage around the balustrade to screen view this does not screen views towards neighbouring properties. As such, these measures would not overcome the loss of privacy.

I have taken into account that no objection has been raised by a neighbouring property. However, this does not outweigh the harm to the occupiers of The Mount, whose private amenity space is most directly affected.

The safety benefits of the balustrade are noted and carry some weight. However, the planning system must balance such benefits against harm to neighbouring amenity. In this instance, the provision of a safety feature to facilitate use as amenity space does not justify the resulting harmful effect.

I conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of occupiers of The Mount, with regard to privacy and overlooking. There is conflict with Policy E2 of the Hambleton Local Plan (2022) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) which seek amongst other things to maintain a high standard of amenity for all occupiers.

There is also conflict with the Hambleton Local Development Framework, [name], Supplementary Planning Document (2009) which highlights that balconies and terraces can create an overlooking effect to neighbouring properties, at a severe detriment to residential amenity.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.