Provision of a roof terrace including new access stair and balustrading to part of existing flat roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 March 2018 by Alison Partington BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28th March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/17/3192137 Wharfe Villa, 4A Langwith Valley Road, Collingham, Wetherby LS22 5DH  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 and Mrs Edwards against the decision of Leeds City Council.  The application Ref 17/04433/FU, dated 5 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 October 2017.  The development proposed is the provision of a roof terrace including new access stair and balustrading to part of existing flat roof. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the provision of a roof terrace including new access stair and balustrading to part of existing flat roof at Wharfe Villa, 4A Langwith Valley Road, Collingham, Wetherby LS22 5DH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/04433/FU, dated 5 July 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: Site Location Plan; Roof Plan and Elevations Drawing No S16/158-01A; and Site Plan Drawing No S16/158- 02A. Main Issue 2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 2 Langwith Valley Road with particular regard to privacy. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a modern, contemporary designed flat roof dwelling set to the rear and at a lower level than other houses on Langwith Valley Road. The proposed L-shaped roof terrace would be located on the north-eastern most part of the roof which is furthest away from the adjacent houses and approximately 1m lower than the part of the roof nearest to them. 4. The roof terrace has the potential to overlook 4 surrounding properties and/or their gardens but the Council’s evidence sets out why they considered it would not have a detrimental impact on the occupiers of Low Gates, and Nos 4 and 6 Langwith Valley Road. Nothing I have seen or read leads me to come to a different conclusion in this regard. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/17/3192137 2 5. The appeal property is located to the rear of No 2 Langwith Valley Road, and due to the difference in levels the ground floor windows of this neighbouring dwelling are approximately the same height as the first floor windows on No 4A. The rear elevation of No 2 contains a number of habitable room windows. Nevertheless, I observed that the existing house already has a large floor to ceiling landing window that looks directly towards the rear garden and elevation of No 2. 6. The Council have stated that the nearest part of the roof terrace would be around 40 m to the boundary with this neighbouring house and the distance to the windows on the dwelling would be even greater. This is significantly greater than the separation distance normally sought between habitable room windows to provide privacy for occupiers, as well as being around 12m further away than the landing window. Given this, notwithstanding the fact that the roof terrace would be wider than a window, I am satisfied, that it would not cause an unacceptable level of overlooking of this adjacent house or garden. 7. Therefore, I consider that the proposed development would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 2 Langwith Valley Road with particular regard to privacy. As a result it would not be contrary to Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) (adopted July 2006) which seeks to ensure that developments resolve detailed design considerations. Nor would it conflict with Policy HDG2 of the Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted April 2012) which seeks to ensure that new developments protect the amenity of neighbours. Other Matters 8. The proposed roof terrace with a glass balustrade around it would not be out of keeping with the contemporary design of the house, and the position of the dwelling means it would have no impact on the street scene. Whilst I note the concerns raised about the design of the host property that is not a matter before me in this appeal. Moreover, given the distinctive design of the property, I am satisfied that the proposal would not set a precedent for other roof terraces in the area, although it has been highlighted that one already exists above the garage of No 2. As the terrace would have a balustrade around all sides, there is no firm evidence to indicate that the proposal would be a safety risk. 9. Whilst the roof terrace would be visible from surrounding properties the distance it would maintain to them, and its largely translucent nature, means it would not be overbearing, or have an adverse impact on the outlook from any of them. In addition, whilst the use of the roof terrace may create some noise, this is unlikely to be any greater than noise created by the occupiers when using their garden. Given the separation distances that would be maintained to surrounding properties, I consider that noise levels would continue to be well within the levels normally considered to be acceptable. Conclusion and Conditions 10. For the reasons set out above, I conclude the appeal should be allowed. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/17/3192137 3 11. In addition to the standard implementation condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant plans, as this provides certainty. Alison Partington INSPECTOR