Formation of roof terrace – existing unauthorised

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2017 by G P Jones BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 3 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G1250/D/17/3188375 7 Belle Vue Crescent, Southbourne, Bournemouth, Dorset BH6 3BW  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 Mrs Nichola Pack against the decision of Bournemouth Borough Council.  The application Ref 7-2017-6363-E, dated 5 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 September 2017.  The development proposed is formation of roof terrace – existing unauthorised. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for formation of roof terrace – existing unauthorised at 7 Belle Vue Crescent, Southbourne, Bournemouth, Dorset BH6 3BW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 7-2017-6363-E, dated 5 July 2017, and the plans submitted with it, and subject to the following condition: 1) Prior to the occupation of the terrace hereby permitted, the terrace in the rear flat roof shall be provided with 1.1m high obscurely glazed privacy screens, in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The privacy screens shall be sited on the three outer sides of the roof terrace as shown on the approved plans, before the development hereby approved is first brought into use, and thereafter shall be maintained and retained in that condition in perpetuity. Procedural matters 2. The planning application form contains a long and detailed description of the development. Consequently, for the sake of brevity and clarity I have used in the banner heading the description of development as provided in the Council’s decision notice and the appeal form. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby properties, having particular regard to overlooking and loss of privacy. Reasons 4. The proposed roof terrace is sited on top of a flat roof rear extension that spans part of the rear elevation of the appeal property. The proposed scheme Appeal Decision APP/G1250/D/17/3188375 2 comprises an area of decking bounded by stainless steel balustrades with glazing in between. At the time of my site visit it was evident that the roof terrace had largely, but not entirely, been constructed. 5. From this roof area it would be possible to look into a significant part of the garden of the property that lies to the rear no.7 Foxholes Road and also the windows on its rear elevation. This is a large dwelling set within quite a spacious plot and thus the rear windows are a reasonable distance away. Whilst the appeal property and nos. 7a, 5a and 5 Foxholes Road are also quite large dwellings, they have smaller rear gardens. From the roof terrace it would be possible to see into the rear gardens and some of the windows of these properties, albeit at more of an oblique angle and a greater distance than is the case for no. 7 Foxholes Road. However, some parts of the back gardens of these dwellings would be obscured by the existing close-boarded wooden fencing and vegetation. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to expect a degree of intervisibility in a residential area such as this. 6. In addition, it would be possible to look into the rear gardens of the properties on either side of the appeal property, nos. 5 and 9 Belle Vue Crescent, although the proposed terrace is set back from the northern edge of the roof and this along with an outbuilding in the rear garden of the neighbouring property would restrict the view into no. 9. 7. There is some vegetation surrounding the appeal site, including two mature trees in the rear garden of no. 7 Foxholes. Road. My site visit took place at a time when the trees were not in leaf. Therefore in the summer months the vegetation would provide a greater amount of screening than that which I observed during my site visit. Although there would still be overlooking from the roof terrace, particularly into the rear elevation and garden of no. 7 Foxholes Road, the vegetation being in leaf would serve to lessen the amount of overlooking of the neighbouring properties and their rear gardens. 8. The appellant has provided information in regard to a previous planning application, planning reference 7-1983-6363-D, for alterations and extensions to form a bedroom. This application was granted approval in 1983 and the plan indicates a door leading out on to the flat roof, and a balustrade around the perimeter of the roof, which was removed at some time during the 1990s. The appellant states that the roof of the extension had been strengthened to accommodate its use as a roof terrace, and I have no information to the contrary. Although I cannot ascertain whether it is the original door as depicted on the 1983 planning application, nevertheless there is currently a glazed door leading from what is now a breakfast room out on to the roof terrace. 9. The Council’s e-mail, dated 20 June 2017, confirms that it would be possible to use the roof as a roof terrace but that the proposed decking and balustrade would require planning permission. The appellant contends that the roof has been used as a roof terrace for a number of years and I have not been presented with any evidence to the contrary. To my mind the fact that the appellant could continue to use the flat roof area as an outside terrace represents a significant ‘fallback’ position. 10. Therefore in reaching my decision I give considerable weight to the fact that the roof of the extension has been, and could continue to be, used as a roof terrace. The proposal would continue this use but would restrict it to within a Appeal Decision APP/G1250/D/17/3188375 3 smaller decked area, and in particular that part of the proposed terrace closest to the common side boundary with no. 9 would be set back from the edge of the flat roof. Also, the glazed balustrade and privacy screen that would enclose the decking would lessen the amount of actual and perceived overlooking and any consequent loss of privacy. As such I consider that the proposal would represent an improvement from the existing situation in this regard. 11. Consequently, I consider that, when considered in the round, the proposal would be acceptable and would accord with saved Policy 6.10 of the Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan, adopted 2002, and with Policy CS41 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: Core Strategy, adopted 2012. These policies and guidance seek, among other matters, to ensure that development is not detrimental to amenity and respects the living conditions of the occupants of nearby properties. Conditions 12. The Council has suggested a condition in the event that the appeal succeeds. I have considered this in light of the advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). In allowing the appeal I shall impose conditions accordingly, improving precision where necessary in accordance with the advice in the PPG. 13. The Council has recommended a planning condition that would require a privacy screen of 1.8m in height to be erected around the three outer sides of the roof terrace. The appellant has agreed to the imposition of a planning condition for a privacy screen of 1.1m in height which would fit in with the height of the balustrade that has already been erected. I accept that a privacy screen of 1.8m would mitigate against any overlooking from users of the roof terrace even when standing up. 14. However, it is my view that it would be unreasonable to require the erection of a 1.8m high privacy screen as this is substantially different from what is being proposed in the application. Also, it would create a significant sense of enclosure and would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. Such a condition would therefore not comply with the tests as set out in the PPG and paragraph 206 of the Framework. However, a lower height privacy screen of 1.1m, that the appellant has agreed to, would help to alleviate overlooking to a degree and would be more in keeping with the character an appearance of the area, including the side roof terrace at no. 5 Belle Vue Crescent. Conclusion 15.Therefore for the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposal would constrain the existing use of the roof terrace into a smaller area which would be enclosed by a privacy screen. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be acceptable and the appeal should be allowed. GP Jones INSPECTOR