Proposed rear first floor balcony with balustrade and replacement of first floor window with door

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2019 by Andreea Spataru BA (Hons) MA MRTPI Decision by Susan Ashworth BA (Hons) BPL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/H4315/D/19/3226708 85 Ashton Avenue, Rainhill, Prescot L35 0QR • 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 Darren Baldwin against the decision of St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref P/2018/0906/HHFP, dated 19 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 11 February 2019. • The development proposed is described as “proposed rear first floor balcony with balustrade and replacement of first floor window with door”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear first floor balcony with balustrade and replacement of first floor window with door at 85 Ashton Avenue, Rainhill, Prescot L35 0QR in accordance with the terms of application Ref P/2018/0906/HHFP, dated 19 December 2018 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 735.loc; 735.02; 735.03a; 735.04a; 735.05a; 735.06b. 3. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4. No machinery, storage of materials or any form of ground disturbance shall be carried out within the Tree Protection Areas of the site during the construction of the development. The Tree Protection Areas are defined as any soft ground areas beneath the canopy of any trees on or adjacent the site. 5. Prior to the balcony hereby approved being first brought into use, the privacy screens shall be erected as shown on the approved plans and shall be retained in that position for the life of the development. Appeal Decision APP/H4315/D/19/3226708 2 Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of dwellings Nos 83 and 87 Ashton Avenue. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site relates to a detached dwelling located in a predominantly residential area. The appeal property has a single storey flat roof rear extension, and an attached flat roof garage to the side and rear of the dwelling. The property also has a large garden to the rear. Neighbouring properties Nos 83 and 87 Ashton Avenue also have gardens to the rear. 5. The proposed balcony, which would be located on the flat roofed rear extension, would project along the full width of the host dwelling. The proposal includes 1.8 m high obscure glazed screens to both sides, and a glass balustrade to the rear. An existing first floor window would be replaced by doors to provide access to the balcony. 6. The development would be set-in from the side boundaries shared with neighbouring properties Nos 83 and 87. The existing garage along with the trees and other vegetation provide partial screening for the rear gardens of the appeal site and neighbouring properties. Based on my visit and the evidence available to me, the rear gardens of the adjoining properties are already overlooked from the existing first floor rear windows, as is common where residential properties are located in close proximity to each other. 7. The proposed privacy screens along the sides of the balcony would restrict views over the neighbouring gardens and generally channel views from the balcony towards the rear garden of the appeal property. The use of the privacy screens would also result in more limited overlooking from the balcony compared to the existing first floor bedrooms windows at the appeal property, particularly, in respect of the garden area immediately to the rear of No 83. 8. I acknowledge the Council’s concern that the balcony could have an overbearing effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings due to its size and its potential to accommodate several people. However, given the set-back of the balcony from the side boundaries and the separation distance between the proposal and the rear of the neighbours’ gardens, the use of the balcony is unlikely to cause any significant harm in this respect. 9. Given the form and massing of the balcony, its siting in relation to neighbouring properties, and the visually lightweight appearance of the screens, the proposal itself would not appear physically oppressive when viewed from adjoining properties. 10. In the light of the above analysis, I conclude that the appeal development, with the privacy screens secured by a planning condition, would not adversely affect Appeal Decision APP/H4315/D/19/3226708 3 the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties Nos 83 and 87 Ashton Avenue, with regard to loss of privacy or in terms of being overbearing. Consequently, the development would accord with Policy GEN 8 of the Saved Unitary Development Plan, CP 1 of the Core Strategy, and the Supplementary Planning Document Householder Development, and the National Planning Policy Framework, which amongst other things, support developments that maintain reasonable standards of privacy for the dwelling in question and its affected neighbours, including garden privacy, and developments that avoid unacceptable intrusiveness. Other matters 11. I concur with the Council that given the siting of the development in relation to the appeal dwelling and surrounding area, the proposal would have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider locality. 12. It is noted that there are several protected trees within the application site. The proposal does not involve works to the trees but nevertheless the Council has expressed concern that the trees should be adequately protected during the construction period. This is a matter that can be dealt with by condition and to which I will turn below. Conditions and Recommendation 13. In the interests of proper planning and to provide certainty I have recommended the standard time limit condition and have specified the approved plans. In order to protect the character and appearance of the area I have specified that matching materials are used in the development. In order to protect the health of the trees, a tree protection condition is reasonable and necessary. 14. I have considered the comments made by the main parties regarding the necessity of a condition relating to the privacy screens. However, in order to protect the privacy of the neighbouring residents, a condition specifying the installation of the screens before the balcony is brought into use and its subsequent retention, is necessary. 15. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to these conditions. Andreea Spataru APPEAL 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 allowed. S Ashworth INSPECTOR