Appeal 6005515

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of wooden decking attached to the rear of the property at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/00931/HOUSE, 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 be carried out in accordance with drawing nos PP-1440972V1 (location plan), AT2/003 (proposed block plan), AT2/006 (proposed plan), AT2/009 (sections across proposed decking), AT2/010 (sections across proposed decking), AT2/018 (proposed elevation from Crosstrees), AT2/019 (proposed elevation from Fieldway).

I have used the description of the proposal contained in the application and repeated in the appeal. This is rather than the amended description used by the Council in its decision notice, which wrongly includes reference to this being a Section 731 proposal, which was not the category of application made. S73 allows for a grant of permission for the development of land without compliance with conditions subject to which a previous permission was granted, so is not applicable here. The Council in its appeal form confirms this householder appeal to be the correct procedure, following its refusal. Therefore, this decision is appropriately determined under S78, as set out above.

Wooden decking is already in place to the rear of the bungalow at [site address] . The earlier retrospective application for this had been refused planning permission by the Council2, with the subsequent appeal recently dismissed3. The Inspector’s 1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 2 Council reference HOUSE/MAL/24/00680 3 Appeal reference APP/X1545/D/25/3359440 findings in this previous appeal comprise material considerations of relevance to this revised proposal and have been addressed accordingly in my decision.

In the previous appeal the Inspector found that the raised decked platform provided views over the boundary fence into the neighbouring back garden at Fieldway, leading to an unacceptable loss of privacy to its occupiers. In that decision, no further material harm was found to the living conditions of any other adjoining property, other than Fieldway, or to the character and appearance of the area. As this scheme reduces the decking, I reach the same conclusion in this case.

The scheme before me seeks to address the concerns raised by the previous Inspector. This is by lowering and narrowing the section of decking adjacent to Fieldway and adding a 1.8m fence panel at the end. An existing planter would be reduced in size to take it away from the side boundary and create space for the relocation of a mature olive tree.

On the basis of the above, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions provided for occupiers of the next-door dwelling at Fieldway, with particular regard to back garden privacy and outlook.

[site address] is within a short sequence of homes that front quite closely onto a private access within the built-up part of Maldon. The land drops quite steeply to the rear, so that their back gardens occupy sloping land. Although the proposed decking extends at the bungalow’s existing ground floor level, the site topography means it rises incrementally above the level of the sloping gardens to the rear. This decking replaces a concreted sitting out area to the immediate rear of the bungalow reached by steps, as shown in the original plans and the photograph submitted.

The reduced width decking would continue to allow access to a door at the rear of the existing side garage at [site address] but limit its amenability as a sitting out area. Coupled with the taller fence panel and reduced decking height, closer to that of the original concrete path in this location, the degree of potential overlooking of the neighbouring windows and back garden at Fieldway would be significantly reduced.

Notwithstanding the success or otherwise of translocating the mature olive tree, the existing boundary fencing and vegetation between the two gardens already reduces the level of intervisibility. It is reasonable to assume the occupancy of the sitting out areas on both the decking and in the next door back garden would be most frequent at times when intervening vegetation was in fullest leaf.

Full regard has been given to the findings of the previous Inspector and these were considered when this revised scheme was viewed, from both the appellant’s property and the back garden at Fieldway. I am satisfied that, in this proposal, the rearward extension and proximity of the decking would not result in an undue degree of overlooking or loss of privacy and preserve acceptable living conditions for the neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore, I do not consider that this decking would comprise either a discordant or overbearing feature in views from the next door back garden.

The proposal would not have a significantly adverse effects upon the living conditions provided for occupiers of the next-door dwelling at Fieldway, including in regard to any unacceptable loss of privacy or outlook from its back garden. As a consequence, I find that it satisfies policies D1 and H4 of the Maldon Local Development Plan 2017 and complies with the development plan as a whole. Subject to conditions imposing the standard three year period for implementation and specifying the approved drawings, I therefore conclude the appeal succeeds.