Use of part of approved rear elevation as two accessible balconies with guarding at first floor level

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 September 2017 by Megan Thomas Barrister-at-Law an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12 October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/Y0435/D/17/3178780 17 Redland Drive, Loughton, Milton Keynes MK5 8EJ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Ms A Lewis against the decision of Milton Keynes Council.  The application Ref. 17/00491/FUL, dated 20 February 2017, was refused by notice dated 19 April 2017.  The development proposed is use of part of approved rear elevation as two accessible balconies with guarding at first floor level. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for use of part of approved rear elevation as two accessible balconies with guarding at first floor level at 17 Redland Drive, Loughton, Milton Keynes MK5 8EJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/00491/FUL, dated 20 February 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the masonry walls hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawing no. 151747 (scale 1:500) Site Layout Plan, and drawing no. 171807-2-PROPOSED M M A. (dated 02/17). Procedural Matter 2. The description of the proposed development on the planning application states “proposed use of part of approved rear elevation first floor level flat roof as accessible balcony with guarding and side vision shielding > see drawing notations - 171807-2- Proposed”. I have amended this in the box heading above and in the formal decision to “use of part of approved rear elevation as two accessible balconies with guarding at first floor level”. This is the description used in the Notice of Decision and I consider it to be a more accurate summary of what is proposed. The amendment does not prejudice any party. Appeal Decision APP/Y0435/D/17/3178780 2 Main Issue 3. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of 15 and 19 Redland Drive with regard to privacy. Reasons 4. The appeal site is a detached dwelling on the north side of Redland Drive. To its east side is 19 Redland Drive which is also a detached dwelling and is orientated at the rear in a slightly more north-westerly direction than the rear of the appeal site which faces a more northerly orientation. To the west of the appeal site is 15 Redland Drive and this has a similar orientation to the appeal site dwelling. All three properties have rear gardens. 5. The appeal dwelling has recently been remodelled and extended and the two main rear facing bedrooms on the first floor are fitted with sliding doors which open onto unguarded areas of flat roof forming part of ground floor development. The eastern ‘balcony’ is narrow at about 0.8m deep and the western one is deeper at about 1.5m. Each are about 6.2m wide. 6. The proposal involves the increase in height of two dwarf walls, one at the western end of the western ‘balcony’ and one at the eastern end of the eastern ‘balcony’. The masonry would be increased in height to a level several centimetres below eaves height. Transparent guards would be fitted along the front and remaining open side of each balcony. 7. With these additional walls in place up to the proposed height, I consider that the views available over the gardens of nos 15 and 19 Redland Drive would be substantially the same or similar to the views available from inside the two existing bedrooms. More of each garden would be seen, but the difference would be marginal. I was able to confirm this on my site visit from each ‘balcony’ and from inside each bedroom. 8. Furthermore, the common boundaries between the appeal site and each neighbouring dwelling are well planted with vegetation growing tall in some places. This vegetation screens and filters views of the gardens of nos 15 and 19 from the first floor of the appeal site. It is in the interests of any occupier of the appeal site who values privacy to maintain that vegetation. Even if the vegetation was to die or be removed, the balconies would be situated physically deep into the plot of no. 17 where views from the balcony would be predominantly of the rear part of the rear gardens of nos 15 and 19. The extent of those views would not be unusual in a residential area like this one where detached houses are arranged in a roughly linear pattern along a street and where a degree of overlooking from first floor windows can be expected. 9. I conclude, therefore, that the proposal would not unduly harm the living conditions of the occupants of 15 or 19 Redland Drive by reason of loss of privacy. It would not be contrary to saved policy D1(iii) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 (adopted 2005). Other Matters 10. Part of the rear gardens of some houses in Redland Drive, including the appeal site, are located in a Conservation Area. However, I agree with the Council that the proposed development would have no harmful effect on the character Appeal Decision APP/Y0435/D/17/3178780 3 or appearance of the Conservation Area, and views out of it would not be detrimentally affected. 11. I have borne in mind that the previous planning permission granted for remodelling and extending the appeal site included a condition which, inter alia, precluded use of the flat roofs as balconies or sitting out areas. However, I am obliged to consider the appeal proposal before me, which includes some new built development, and I have, accordingly, assessed this proposal on its own individual merits. Conditions 12. I have considered the imposition of conditions in the light of advice in National Planning Practice Guidance. In the interests of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area, the materials used in the two masonry walls need to match the materials used in the existing building. I have also imposed a condition tying the development to the submitted plans, in the interests of certainty. Conclusion 13. Having taken into account all representations made, for the reasons given above I allow the appeal. Megan Thomas INSPECTOR