Replacement balcony and new porch/canopy

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 January 2018 by Mike Robins MSc BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 19 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N1160/D/17/3190354 58 Shaw Way, Plymouth PL9 9XH  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 Mr Boote against the decision of Plymouth City Council.  The application Ref 17/01782/FUL, dated 2 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 November 2017.  The development proposed is a replacement balcony and new porch/canopy. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the replacement balcony. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to a new porch/canopy at 58 Shaw Way, Plymouth PL9 9XH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/01782/FUL, dated 2 August 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, so far as they relate to the proposed porch/canopy: unnumbered location plan, identified as received by the Council 29/8/17, and the unnumbered plans and elevations drawing, identified as received by the Council on 2/11/17. Procedural Matter 2. The two parts of the scheme, the balcony and the porch/canopy, are clearly separate and severable. I have therefore been able to reach a split decision on this matter. 3. There would appear to have been some revisions to the proposal during the application process and following a refusal of a different, larger scheme. For clarity, the scheme before me is for a porch/canopy over the door in the side gable of the property and for a full width glass balcony to a depth of 1.5m to the northern, rear elevation, with a 1.9m high obscure glazed privacy screen. Main Issues 4. The main issues in this case are the effect on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to outlook and privacy. Reasons 5. This part of Shaw Way comprises two terrace residential blocks of three or four-storeys in height, located adjacent to the waterfront. The larger block, Appeal Decision APP/N1160/D/17/3190354 2 Numbers 41-57 are set slightly in advance of Numbers 58 to 63, which are offset, albeit with a slight overlap. With entrances generally to the roadside rather than the water, the rear of the properties have French windows and balconies looking out over the adjacent marina. 6. The appeal property, No 58, is the end terrace unit of this smaller block, which, because of the slight overlap, has an element of inter-visibility with the front windows of properties in the larger block, particularly Nos 55-57. 7. Within this smaller block, balconies are present at the first floor and are of a consistent depth, being Juliet-style and providing space to stand, but are not particularly practical to provide a seating area. Materials vary, and while the blue framed suspended balconies would appear to be original, as at the appeal site, there are replacements in steel and glass, as at No 59, although these are similar to the original, limited depth. 8. The larger block to the front has a greater range of balcony depths and materials, albeit these face immediately onto public areas along the South West Coast Path, which runs around the site, and are generally limited in width retaining a defining relationship, as in the smaller block, with the French windows. 9. The Council raise no particular concerns regarding the proposed porch, although I note concerns of some local residents regarding the scale and materials. I consider it would be a relatively small structure, which would not contrast markedly with the design of the existing block, and although visible on entering Shaw Way, it would not be harmful and would comply with Policy CS34 of the Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (the Core Strategy), which seeks development that is compatible with and positively responds to its surroundings. 10. However, the proposed balcony, unlike any of the existing balconies in this block, is shown with piers to support it. Combined with the increased depth, width and the proposed privacy screen, this would be a large additional element to the rear elevation of these units, which would be particularly prominent located as it is on the end terrace aligned with the road access into Shaw Way. 11. While there are balconies of various styles and design in the surrounding area there is a distinct rhythm and scale to those on this block. Contrary to the appellant’s suggestion, the site is readily visible from the Coast Path, albeit such views would be reduced in summer foliage conditions, but the proposed balcony would also be clearly seen from the surrounding properties and gardens. 12. I have no concerns about the proposed materials, indeed steel and glass is both an appropriate design response in such an area and reflective of other replacement balconies; it is the scale. It would be seen as an over large and rather awkward addition, and would harm the character of the area and the appearance of the terraced block. It would therefore conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS34, which seeks development that is compatible with and positively responds to its surroundings. This policy is reflected in the emerging Policy DEV20 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (the emerging Local Plan), to which I can afford limited weight in light of its stage of preparation, albeit I note it has been submitted for examination. Appeal Decision APP/N1160/D/17/3190354 3 13. Turning to the effect on neighbouring occupiers, I appreciate that privacy is somewhat compromised in this relatively high density development. Short rear gardens are overlooked from the balconies and as set out above there is inter- visibility between rooms in the two blocks. Nonetheless, extending the balcony to the full width and increasing the depth such that it would be likely to be used for sitting out and for greater levels of general access, would erode privacy, although this would be most marked in relation to No 59 next door. In response it appears that a privacy screen has been incorporated in the design. 14. This would limit any direct views into the kitchen dining area of No 59 from the balcony. However, because the French doors to that property are close to the boundary and the proposed balcony would extend to full width, the screen would be a significant enclosing element here. As a kitchen diner this would be a well-used room and the outlook, in particular from the kitchen, would be predominantly through the French doors and consequently angled directly towards the screen. While the loss of views does not weigh in my conclusion on this matter, the existing open aspect for this habitable room would be compromised with the screen introducing a dominant and enclosing element. 15. Accordingly, it would fail to comply with Core Strategy Policy CS34, which seeks to protect residential amenity, and with the emerging Local Plan Policy DEV1, which requires development ensure satisfactory levels of outlook for new and existing homes. 16. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part. Mike Robins INSPECTOR