Glass balustrade with opaque side for neighbours privacy with stainless steel supports

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 March 2018 by Philip Lewis BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 26 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/E2001/D/18/3194519 5 Castle Drive, South Cave HU15 2ES  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 Gerald Moore against the decision of East Riding of Yorkshire Council.  The application Ref DC/17/02564/PLF/WESTES, dated 25 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 20 December 2017.  The development proposed was originally described as ‘glass balustrade with opaque side for neighbours privacy with stainless steel supports’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. I saw at my site visit that a balcony has been formed above the flat roofed rear single storey extension at the host property. The submitted plans differs from the development I saw on site in that it is proposed that the height of the balustrades and screens are to be raised to about 1.8 metres and the framework extended to the contours of the roof. For the avoidance of doubt, I have dealt with the appeal on the basis of the plans submitted. Main Issues 3. The main issues for the appeal are:  Whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the South Cave Conservation Area; and  The effect of the appeal scheme on the living conditions of the occupiers of 3 and 7 Castle Drive with particular regard to any loss of privacy, dominance, overshadowing and / or loss of light. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site is situated within the South Cave Conservation Area and in accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (1990 Act), I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. Appeal Decision APP/E2001/D/18/3194519 2 5. I saw at my site visit that the Conservation Area covers much of the centre of the village, Castle and grounds. The Conservation Area, whilst it contains predominately residential buildings has a mixed character and there is some variety in the age, design and appearance of buildings. The appeal property is a relatively modern dormer bungalow, set amongst dwellings of similar appearance and I consider it makes a neutral contribution to the Conservation Area. 6. I noted that the existing balustrades and opaque screens to the side of the balcony are visible from the street and in private views. The proposed increase in height of the screening through what is described on the appeal plans as ‘mesh’ and increase in the length of the screen would significantly increase its visibility in the street scene. The proposed enlarged screens would, due to the height, materials and appearance, be seen as unsympathetic additions to the dwelling and would appear dominant and incongruous within the street scene. I have had regard to the comments of the Council’s Conservation Officer, but nevertheless find that the appeal scheme would give rise to some limited harm to the appearance of the Conservation Area. 7. Paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that in determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets. This is in line with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in respect of development affecting conservation areas, which states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. Paragraph 132 of the Framework sets out that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the conservation of the asset. Having found harm to the Conservation Area, I give it considerable importance and weight in accordance with the statutory duty. 8. Paragraph 126 of the Framework recognises that historic assets are an irreplaceable resource that local authorities should conserve in a manner appropriate to their significance. The harm found in this case would be less than substantial to the Conservation Area as a whole and paragraph 134 of the Framework sets out that any harm, which is less than substantial, must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm requires clear and convincing justification. In this case the appeal scheme relates to a private dwelling and no public benefits have been established. 9. The appeal scheme would give rise to harm to the appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene and would fail to preserve or enhance the appearance of the South Cave Conservation Area. The proposal conflicts with Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document 2012-2029 (Local Plan) which is concerned with high quality design and includes amongst other things that all development proposals will contribute to safeguarding and respecting the diverse character and appearance of the area through their design, layout, construction and use. Living conditions 10. I saw at my site visit that there is already a degree of mutual overlooking of rear gardens by dwellings on this part of Castle Drive, as a consequence of the Appeal Decision APP/E2001/D/18/3194519 3 first floor dormers and the nature of the boundary treatments. During my site visit I accessed the existing balcony above the roof of the rear extension and saw that its use could give rise to unacceptable overlooking of neighbouring dwellings. However the screens proposed, which could be secured by planning conditions if I were minded to allow the appeal, would be adequate in safeguarding the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in terms of privacy. Given the position and scale of the proposed balcony, screens and orientation of dwellings, I do not consider that the appeal scheme would cause any unacceptable loss of light or give rise to unacceptable overbearing effects. 11. The proposal would not give rise to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 3 and 7 Castle Drive and would not conflict in respect of this issue with Local Plan Policy ENV1, or paragraph 17 of the Framework which includes, amongst other things, that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings. However, my findings in respect of living conditions do not outweigh those in respect of character and appearance. Other matters 12. I have had regard to the Council officer’s recommendation in favour of the planning application and note the appellants comment that a member of the Parish Council lives nearby, but this does not lead me to a different decision. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above and having considered all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Philip Lewis INSPECTOR