I have been advised by Mrs Susan King (Planning Enforcement Officer) to re-submit my planning application in light of conversation I have had with her. This is a retrospective application for decking at 121 Lower Boxley Road, Maidstone, Kent. The decking was already in situ when I purchased the property in March 2016

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 June 2018 by R J Maile BSc FRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U2235/D/18/3197458 121 Lower Boxley Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 2UT.  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 Angela Rotherham against the decision of Maidstone Borough Council.  The application ref: 17/505695/FULL, dated 30 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 January 2018.  The development proposed was originally described as: “I have been advised by Mrs Susan King (Planning Enforcement Officer) to re-submit my planning application in light of conversation I have had with her. This is a retrospective application for decking at 121 Lower Boxley Road, Maidstone, Kent. The decking was already in situ when I purchased the property in March 2016. After a number of conversations with Mrs King and Ms Louise Wellsford (Case Officer) it was suggested that I place trellis between the two properties for privacy reasons. I am happy to be guided by the Planners regarding the height of the trellis (see letter attached), however, the height of the trellis and already positioned fence will be less than 2m.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the decking upon the living conditions of existing and future residents of 119 Lower Boxley Road, Maidstone. Reasons 3. 121 Lower Boxley Road is a late Victorian terraced house that is located within the town centre of Maidstone. The property has a narrow frontage to the road and a small rear garden, which slopes upwards away from the house. 4. A large part of the garden of the subject property has been covered with timber decking. This steps upwards to create three levels, with a wooden garden shed at the far end abutting a brick boundary wall. As confirmed by my site visit, it is possible to obtain direct views from the decking into the rear private garden of 119 Lower Boxley Road. Appeal Decision APP/U2235/D/18/3197458 2 5. National policy in the Framework1 seeks, amongst other matters, positive improvements in people’s quality of life (paragraph 9). 6. Policy DM1 iv. of the Local Plan2 requires proposals to respect the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties and not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy or light enjoyed by those occupiers. Policy DM9 sets out a number of detailed criteria, including that the privacy, daylight, sunlight and maintenance of a pleasant outlook of adjoining residents would be safeguarded (Criterion iii.). 7. I note that a previous retrospective application seeking planning permission for the decking the subject of this appeal was refused by the Council in 2017 (ref: 16/508692/FULL) following an objection from the owner of no. 119 due to the impact of the decking upon his privacy and amenity. 8. As part of the application now before me it is proposed to provide trellising to the existing boundary fence in an attempt to address those issues. However, the owner of no. 119 has again objected to the proposal having regard to the height of the decking and concerns, given the open nature of trellising, that overlooking will be an ongoing problem. I share those concerns. 9. The appellant’s grounds of appeal suggest that the owner of no. 119 would be prepared to accept the retention of the decking if the boundary were to be replaced with a new larch lap fence not exceeding 2m in height. However, I have seen no written confirmation from the owner of no. 119 to this effect. 10. In any event, although the erection of a tall fence similar to that between nos. 121 and 123 and shown in the photographs produced to me in evidence would address the issue of overlooking, it would nevertheless create an overbearing and highly visible structure as viewed from the garden of no. 119, which is small in size and of very restricted width. 11. I therefore find upon the main issue that the wooden decking as erected, by reason of its height above ground level and its proximity to the boundary fence, is harmful to the living conditions of existing and future residents of 119 Lower Boxley Road, contrary to national policy in the Framework as referred to above and Policies DM1 iv. and DM9 iii. of the Local Plan. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should fail. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR 1 The National Planning Policy Framework. 2 The Maidstone Borough Local Plan (adopted October 2017).