Decking to rear of property. Retrospective planning application

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 October 2018 by Julie Dale Clark BA (Hons) MCD DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 8th November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B2355/D/18/3209868 2 Park Road, Waterfoot, Rossendale, Lancashire BB4 9BW  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 & Mrs C & A Walton against the decision of Rossendale Borough Council.  The application Ref 2018/0313, dated 5 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 31 July 2018.  The development proposed is Decking to rear of property. Retrospective planning application. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. I consider that the main issue is the effect of the decking on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring house, No 4 Park Road. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a semi-detached house which lies to the south of the adjoining dwelling, No 4 Park Road. The proposed decking has already been erected in part in that a raised terrace has been erected with a low timber fence enclosing it to the side adjacent to No 4 and to the rear. The proposal however includes additional timber panels including 1.8 metre high panels to the side adjacent to No 4. The garden and rear patio are set at a lower level which are accessible from the house via the kitchen. 4. Core Strategy1 Policy 23 sets out a set of criteria aimed at promoting high quality design and spaces. Amongst other things Core Strategy Policy 24 requires development to protect residential amenity in terms of daylight and sunlight, outlook and privacy. The Council’s SPD for alterations and extensions to residential properties2 advises that balconies should be sited or screened so as not to cause loss of privacy for neighbours and consideration will also be given to loss of light or outlook. Due to the difference in ground levels between the house and its rear garden, the effect of the decking is not dissimilar to a balcony. 1 Core Strategy Development Plan Document: The way forward (2011-2026), Adopted 8 November 2011. 2 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Properties A Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), June 2008. Appeal Decision APP/B2355/D/18/3209868 2 5. As constructed the decking and timber railings impinge on the privacy of the occupiers of No 4, particularly on the room served by a rear bay window but the proposal includes timber panels along the side of the decking which would reduce this impact. However, due to the significant drop in land levels between these houses and their gardens and the orientation of the dwellings, the overall height of the decking and fencing would appear overbearing especially as it would be so close to the boundary between Nos 2 and 4. 6. The circumstances for the decking have been made clear and are supported by a variety of documents explaining the need for this outdoor amenity space and the health and functional value of having level access from the house. However, personal circumstances can change and although I appreciate the circumstances explained this does not justify a structure that would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining house. I have taken into account that the new owners of No 4 have no objection to the proposal provided appropriate screening is added to the existing structure. However, this does not persuade me that the decking is appropriate in this particular location. 7. I have taken all matters raised into consideration especially the sensitive matters raised and the National Planning Policy Framework but none alter my conclusion. 8. I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring house, No 4 Park Road. It would conflict with Policy 24 and therefore the appeal fails. J D Clark INSPECTOR