Raised deck and associated fencing

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 March 2021 by P Eggleton BSc(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/21/3267552 16A Manston Lane, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS15 8HZ • 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 Gary Johnson against the decision of Leeds City Council. • The application Ref 20/05613/FU, dated 4 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 11 November 2020. • The development proposed is a raised deck and associated fencing. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect on the living conditions of the residents of 18 Manston Lane with regard to privacy; and the effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The raised decking has already been constructed. The full extent of its rear facing balustrade is clearly evident from nearly all of the rear garden of 18 Manston Lane. Given that the decking area is at a high level; and it is immediately adjacent to the boundary, the neighbouring residents would feel entirely overlooked when the decking area was in use. As they would be looked down upon from a significant height and from quite close range, the structure would be unacceptably intrusive. Any noise from the use of the structure would add to this concern. It would unacceptably harm the enjoyment of the neighbouring garden. 4. Although alterations have been made and planting introduced on the terrace, which could be further augmented, I do not consider there to be significant potential to further reduce its impact without entirely enclosing it with high fencing to all sides. That would result in the structure being unacceptably imposing. I acknowledge that there is an area where further planting along the boundary could take place but this would take a considerable time to mature and I am not satisfied that it would address all of my concerns. 5. The proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the residents of 18 Manston Lane, particularly with regard to privacy. The Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/21/3267552 2 development is therefore contrary to the amenity requirements of saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006). As this policy remains consistent with the aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework, it can be afforded full weight. I also find conflict with the amenity requirements of Policy HDG2 of the Supplementary Planning Document - Householder Design Guide 2012. 6. As the structure is set back from the road; and between and towards the rear of these adjacent properties, it has only a limited impact on the street scene, both to the front and rear. Although not a positive design feature, I do not consider that it results in unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the area. The proposal would bring benefits to the occupants of the first floor flat and these benefits would be sufficient to outweigh the design concerns raised. 7. Although I find that the design shortcomings are outweighed by the benefits of the proposal, these benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that would result to the privacy and living conditions of the neighbouring residents. I therefore dismiss the appeal. Peter Eggleton INSPECTOR