Appeal 6006300

The appeal is dismissed.

The issue in this case is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbours at No.[address].

The appeal site is a two storey mid-terraced dwelling located within a run of similar houses on the west side of [address]. The host building has an original 2- storey rear outrigger, as does the neighbouring house at No.173. The gap between these 2 outriggers is a little over 4m wide. The ground floor of the appeal property has a change of level, so that the kitchen at the rear is at a lower level that the roadside accommodation. It appears that No.173 has a similar layout.

The appeal property originally had a window in the rear wall between the outriggers serving habitable accommodation at the upper ground floor level. The appellant’s drawings show the original window to measure 976mm width and 1166mm in height. Both houses also have similarly sized windows in the flank walls of the outriggers facing each other. The appeal property has now had the rear facing window replaced by a doorway, the cill of which is shown to be 980mm above garden level, giving access from the house to the upper level of the decking. The decking is reached by steps rising from the garden level to the level area of decking, which is almost 3m long, along the common boundary. This decking is surmounted by a fence and trellis work on the boundary approximately 2m high.

Both parties make reference to development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework, but the decision in this case comes down to a matter of whether there is any harm to the living conditions of the relevant neighbour that would justify refusing permission to retain the structure.

The side space to the outrigger of the neighbouring occupiers at No.173 will have become a much less beneficial area than it was prior to the erection of the decking and it’s elevated fencing, In addition, the outlook from the window serving a habitable room on the rear wall of No. 173 has been changed by the decking and fence, and there will be at least a perceived loss of privacy with occupation by the appellant and perhaps others immediately outside of this window. The fencing to the decking will also be an intrusion into the outlook from this window. In addition, the raised decking area will reduce the degree of privacy in this neighbour’s garden. Whilst the original rear facing window of the appeal dwelling would have had an outlook towards that garden, that would have been a much less of an intrusion into the privacy of the garden than the 3.25m by 2m area of raised decking that is used for relaxation and socialising by the appellant.

Against this, the appellant points to the advantages of having this decking in providing a sitting out area conveniently accessed from the main level of the house. She states that the upper decking is used daily in warmer months, for morning coffee with her daughter, for lunch together when the weather permits, and for quiet evening time outdoors. She often works outside during sunny days, which improves wellbeing and productivity, and also uses the space to pursue her hobby of painting. When occasionally entertaining, the decking provides essential overflow space.

However, there is a door into the garden from the kitchen at garden level which provides easy access to the garden, which is more than 6m long, so that the decking provides little in the way of amenity beyond that which could be provided by the garden. The personal benefit to the appellant is to the detriment of the living conditions of the neighbours, referred to above, to the extent that the refusal of permission for the retention of the steps and decking at the appeal property is justified. For these reasons the appeal will be dismissed.