Replacement deck and stairs at rear of property

_________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 February 2021 by C Hall BSc MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 April 2021. Appeal Ref: APP/Z5060/D/20/3265671 79a Downing Road, Dagenham RM9 6NA • 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 Elono Baraku against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. • The application Ref 20/02166/FULL, dated 5 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 10 December 2020. • The development proposed is a replacement deck and stairs at rear of property. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a replacement deck and stairs to rear of property at 79a Downing Road, Dagenham in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 20/02166/FULL, dated 5 October 2020, and the plans submitted with it (A3/4853/202, A3/4853/204, A3/4853/205). Preliminary Matters 2. At my site visit, I saw that the development has been completed and I note that the application has been submitted retrospectively. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis. 3. I have taken the address from the Council's decision notice, rather than the original planning application form or appeal form, which list the address as “Dowling Road”. 4. The Local Authority's decision notice refers to several policies within the Draft Local Plan (Regulation 19 Consultation Version, October 2020). However, as the Draft Local Plan may be subject to further change, I only attach limited weight to these policies. Policies GG1, GG3, D4 and D14 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) are unchanged from the Intend to Publish version, and replace the policies in the 2016 London Plan, both of which are referred to in the Council’s decision. Main Issues 5. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: ⚫ the character and appearance of the area; and ⚫ the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring houses with regard to privacy, outlook and overbearing impact. Appeal Decision APP/Z5060/D/20/3265671 _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Reasons Character and appearance 6. The deck and stairs are readily apparent from the recreation ground to the rear of the site. The development is constructed from wood of a light brown colour, matching the existing fencing on site and in the surrounds. I note that the Council's Urban Design Officers raised no concerns or issues and that the Authority is of the view that the proposed materials are acceptable. 7. This notwithstanding, the Council is concerned that due to the significant slope within the rear garden, the height of the deck results in a sizeable and significant addition to the property, with the additional solid fencing appearing discordant when viewed from the neighbouring dwellings. 8. I am not persuaded that this would be the case. Viewing the development from the garden and the recreation ground, it appears as a credible solution in the context of local topography. Its scale does not appear overly dominant or prominent, and the design assimilates with the property and surrounding boundary treatments. 9. I note the Council's argument that the development will exceed the limits for rear extensions outlined within the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document February 2012 (SPD). However, the appeal proposal is not an extension and is of significantly smaller scale and extent than the existing rear addition to the appeal property. 10. With these factors in mind, I consider that there would be no demonstrable harm as a result of the scheme. The deck and stairs can be adequately accommodated within the site and would not detract from the visual amenity of the vicinity. 11. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently it would comply with the requirements of policies CM1, CP2 and CP3 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Core Strategy July 2010 (CS); policy BP11 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document March 2011 (DPD); and D4 of the LP. Collectively these policies seek to ensure proposals relate to surrounding development, are well-designed and respect and enhance the character of an area. The appeal scheme would also be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Living conditions 12. There is presently a significant degree of mutual overlooking between properties at the rear of the dwellings in Downing Road. Views of the rear gardens are also afforded from the adjacent recreation ground. I consider that the deck and stairs do not exacerbate the situation, and subject to the retention of the privacy panel on the boundary with no. 77 Downing Road, there would be no adverse loss of privacy to the rear garden of this neighbouring house. 13. The floor level of the deck is lower than the close board fencing that runs along the common boundary with no. 77. The wooden railing does project above the Appeal Decision APP/Z5060/D/20/3265671 _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 3 fencing, however is not a solid element and is hidden behind the privacy panel. To my mind, these elements do not result in a loss of outlook or create an overbearing impact above and over the existing close board boundary fence. 14. This leaves the privacy panel itself. Although it does project above the fencing below, it is topped by a trellis which provides some visual relief, and its presence is necessary to alleviate overlooking to the neighbouring rear garden. I have taken into account the substantial side wall of the existing rear extension that it adjoins, and that it is set back slightly from the common boundary. On balance, I am of the view that any loss of outlook or overbearing impact arising from the panel would not be so severe as to warrant dismissal of the appeal on these grounds. 15. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring houses with regard to privacy, outlook and overbearing impact. The scheme would be compliant with policy BP8 of the DPD and policies GG1, GG3 and D14 of the LP, which require new development to ensure protection of amenity, preventing significant overlooking, loss of outlook and overbearing impacts. The proposal is also consistent with the advice in the Framework which seeks to ensure safe and healthy living conditions. Conditions 16. I have considered the imposition of conditions in light of advice in Planning Policy Guidance and the Framework. The development is complete and therefore the standard time limit and plans condition are no longer necessary. I am satisfied that no conditions are required. Conclusion 17. For the above reasons and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. C Hall INSPECTOR