External deck and stair to rear garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 April 2021 by Emma Worby BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by Andrew Owen BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/K2230/D/21/3267578 1 Wye Road, Gravesend, Kent DA12 5QT • 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 Natalia Bejan against the decision of Gravesham Borough Council. • The application Ref 20200691, dated 12 November 2020, was refused by notice dated 6 January 2021. • The development is external deck and stair to rear garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeals Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. The application was submitted retrospectively, and I saw at my site visit that the veranda and stairs had been constructed. However, the proposal also includes a 2 metre high timber fence between the appeal property and No.3 Wye Road which, at the time of the site visit, had not yet been constructed. I have therefore considered the appeal on a part retrospective basis. Main Issues 4. The main issues in the appeal are: • the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties to the north in relation to privacy; and • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation Living Conditions 5. The appeal property is a two-storey end of terrace dwelling with a single storey rear projection. Due to the sloping of the ground level on the site, which is highest at the front of the site, the ground floor level of the dwelling at the rear is much higher than the garden. The development connects the ground floor of the dwelling to the garden with a timber veranda and staircase. Appeal Decision APP/K2230/D/21/3267578 2 6. Although the veranda is not overly large, it does extend the full width of the dwelling and provides the occupiers of the appeal site with some additional amenity space rather than just a route between the dwelling and garden. 7. A fence with a height of 2 metres has been proposed between the development and No.3 Wye Road. This is sufficient to protect the privacy of the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling and others to the south of the appeal site whilst the occupiers of appeal property are using the veranda. 8. However, there would be no screening between the development and the rear of the properties to the north of the appeal site, along Hillside Avenue. There are large outbuildings in the rear gardens of Nos.42 and 44 Hillside Avenue which prevent any views from the veranda into the gardens of these properties. However, there are uninterrupted views into the garden of No.46 from the development resulting in a loss of privacy to the occupiers of this dwelling when using their garden. 9. The appellant has drawn my attention to a development at 5 Wye Road which has a similar veranda and stairs to the rear, providing access to the garden. However, that veranda has tall privacy screens around the main section on both sides preventing any overlooking into the neighbouring gardens. Furthermore, No.5 is some distance from the properties on Hillside Avenue. Therefore, it is not directly comparable to the appeal before me. 10. It is also noted that the existing concrete staircase from the dwelling to the garden was replaced as it was deemed unsafe. However as the extent of the work, including the veranda, is greater than what was replaced, the impact on the neighbouring residents is greater. 11. Therefore, the development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of a neighbouring dwelling and would be contrary to the relevant sections of Policy CS19 of the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014). This requires new development to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring properties in relation to privacy. Character and Appearance 12. Due to the end of terrace location of the appeal site and the height of the structure, the development is partially visible from surrounding properties and the access road to the side of the site. However, the veranda is not overly large or prominent and its overall appearance, with the use of timber materials in a similar fashion to decking or a boundary fence, is typical of a rear garden environment. Therefore, it is not an incongruous addition to the host dwelling or surrounding area. 13. Consequently, the development does not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area and would not be contrary to the relevant sections of Policy CS19 which requires new development to conserve and enhance the character of the local built environment. Conclusions and Recommendation 14. Although the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, it has been found that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Overall, the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a Appeal Decision APP/K2230/D/21/3267578 3 whole and there are no other material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. 15. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal is dismissed. Emma Worby APPEALS PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 16. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Owen INSPECTOR