Rear balcony with side privacy screen above single storey element of existing rear extension. Balcony to be accessed via new ’bi-fold’ doors

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 March 2021 by J Hunter BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 March 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/21/3266761 31, Allerton Crescent, Moor Allerton, Leeds LS17 6LN • 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 Ms Sophie Dancer against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref 20/06426/FU, dated 2 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 24 November 2020. • The development proposed is described as a rear balcony with side privacy screen above single storey element of existing rear extension. Balcony to be accessed via new ’bi-fold’ doors. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties with reference to privacy. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached property located in a predominantly residential area and set on an incline with a terraced rear garden. To the rear, the property has a flat roof extension with and lean-to offshoot at ground floor level. The proposal would see the development of a balcony area above the ground floor extension. 4. The proposed balcony would comprise of a fairly modest terrace area with a fixed handrail and bi-folding doors to provide access into the first floor. A 2m opaque glass privacy screen would separate the balcony from the adjoining house thus ensuring that users of the balcony would not see into the windows of the adjoining house. 5. Notwithstanding the above, the position and height of the balcony would afford its users with open and unrestricted views into the external amenity space of the adjoining neighbours on either side of the host property and to a lesser extent those to the rear and further along the row of houses. I therefore consider that the addition of the balcony would give rise to an unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/21/3266761 2 6. I acknowledge that the external areas of the host property and its neighbours are already overlooked to an extent by the rear windows of the neighbouring properties. Furthermore, I saw during my site visit that there are other examples of first floor terraces and raised decking areas within the street, nonetheless, I must consider this development on its own merits. and the presence of similar developments does not outweigh my findings that the proximity, height and openness of the roof terrace would give rise to an increased level of overlooking that would cause material harm. 7. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would have a significantly detrimental effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties with reference to privacy. Consequently, the proposal would fail to accord with requirements of Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006) and Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (as amended by the Core Strategy Selective Review 2019) which seek to, amongst other things, protect the residential amenity of surrounding properties and areas. Conclusion 8. For the reasons set out above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed. J Hunter INSPECTOR