Appeal 6007486

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed balcony on: • The character and appearance of the Egerton Conservation Area, and • The living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] of privacy.

No 339 is a small, stone-built dwelling situated on the western side of [address] and lies within the Egerton Conservation Area (CA). It has a lounge/dining/kitchen on the ground floor, and a bedroom and bathroom on the first floor. It adjoins No 341 to the north, which is a bistro, and there is another small property attached to the rear. No 339 is essentially single-aspect, with windows serving the main habitable space to the front elevation, but with a small ground-floor window in the side elevation, serving the kitchen area, and a small bathroom first-floor window above. The proposed development would involve the construction of a balcony on the first floor of the side elevation of the dwelling with access from the bedroom via French windows.

The Council contends that the proposed development by virtue of its size, siting and design will have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the building and [name]. Also, it would, by virtue of its design and siting, impact detrimentally on the outlook and living conditions of neighbouring residents at no.[address].

The appeal property forms part of a long street frontage containing groups of stone-built or stone-fronted houses on the western side of the road. Opposite to No 339 are further small houses which are either stone-built or brick built. To the southern side of No [address]/parking area that appears to serve Nos 333 to 339, and running alongside this is a short road leading to the [name] and ground. Further south and beyond the access road to the cricket club is No 329, which is an end terraced house.

Policy JP-P1 of Places for Everyone (PfE) states that development should have a clear identity that respects the character and identity of the locality in terms of design, siting, and materials used. Policy OA5.8 of the Council’s Core Strategy (CS) indicates that that the Council will conserve and enhance the character of the existing physical environment, especially the conservation areas. This follows the thrust of Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) which states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

Paragraph 3.3 of the [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) indicates that extensions should respect and be sensitive to the proportions or particular features of the existing house while special considerations apply to dwellings which are within conservation areas.

The appellant contends that there is no consistent style within the CA and that the area surrounding the appeal property has a varied street scape with a significant amount of modern fenestration and a wide variety of designs. In addition, there is a cricket board sign and other signage in the street scene by No 339 which reduces the quality of the CA.

I acknowledge that the wider CA contains a variety of building types and designs. However, the general character and appearance of the area in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site remains predominantly one of traditional stone cottages. The CA Character Appraisal notes that In spite of some inappropriate alterations to traditional buildings and the encroachment of the settlement by 20th Century housing, Egerton has retained much of the character of a 19th Century industrial community in a rural area. I concur with that assessment.

The Egerton CA Character Appraisal also notes that negative factors in the CA include that a number of buildings have been altered in ways which detract from their traditional character. This includes the installation of inappropriate windows and doors. Moreover, it states that the integrity of the majority of terraced properties depends on the retention of an uninterrupted flat facade relieved only by the subtle modelling of the surface achieved by the recessing of doors and windows, while bow and bay windows and changes in size or shape of windows and door openings are unacceptable.

In this case, the proposed first-floor balcony would involve punching a hole in the side elevation of the house to create access to the balcony. The balcony would be 3 metres wide and 1 metre deep and, according to the submitted Planning, Design and [name], would include the following features: a mild steel insulated lintel; a uPVC [name] in woodgrain brown, a glazed balustrade, and an obscure glazed window.

As a result of the open access/parking area to the side, and the road serving the [name], the side elevation of the appeal property is very prominent in the street scene when approaching from the south. I note the existence of the low roadside sign advertising the [name], but the proposed balcony would be clearly visible above this from a significant distance away and, by reason of its modern and unsympathetic materials and design, it would appear as an incongruous and discordant feature on the otherwise plain stone elevations. It would be a discordant feature in the street scene along this part of [address] and would be harmful to the character and appearance of this section of the CA.

On this issue, therefore, I find that the proposed balcony would be harmful to the character and appearance of the CA and, although the harm would be less that substantial, there would be no public benefits to outweigh this harm. On this basis, it would conflict with national policy on the historic environment as set out in Paragraph 215 of the Framework. It would also conflict with Policy JP-P1 of the PfE and with Policy OA5.8 of the CS.

The proposed balcony would project out from the side elevation of the appeal property by 1 metre and would have a glazed height of 1 metre. This would mean that persons using the balcony would have an uninterrupted view into the front windows of the dwelling at No 333, which is to the side/rear of the access/parking area, at a distance of only 11 metres. The balcony would, therefore, allow for significant overlooking and would be well below the 17 metre separation distance required by paragraph 4.7 of the SPD. Although this paragraph relates to main room windows, I consider that, in this case, the balcony would be likely to result in a greater potential for overlooking than a window.

The appellant refers to a 19 metre gap between the side elevation of the appeal property and that of the dwelling which is situated across the access/parking area and the road to the cricket ground. However, this is No [address] and It would appear from the appellant’s statement that there has been some confusion between Nos 329 and No 333, the latter of which would experience direct overlooking from the balcony, which I have referred to above.

On this issue, therefore, I find that the proposed balcony would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] of privacy and overlooking. On this basis, it would conflict with Policy CG4 of the CS, which requires that new development protects amenity, privacy, safety and security, and also with guidance on separation distances in the SPD.

In conclusion, I find that the proposed balcony would be harmful to the character and appearance of the CA and to the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], by way of loss of privacy. Accordingly, I dismiss this appeal.