Balustrade forward of dormer doors to form balcony
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Extensions
Policy Weight
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 5 September 2025
By A. J. Boughton MA (IPSD) Dip.Arch. Dip.(Conservation) RIBA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 26 September 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/D/25/3370607
35 Chancery Lane, Alsager, Stoke on Trent, Cheshire East ST7 2HE
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs J Perrie against the decision of Cheshire East Council.
• The application Ref is 25/1178/HOUS.
• The development proposed is Balustrade forward of dormer doors to form balcony.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Balustrade forward of
dormer doors to form balcony at 35 Chancery Lane, Alsager, Stoke On Trent,
Cheshire East ST7 2HE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref
25/1178/HOUS and the plans submitted with it. subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby approved shall begin within three years of the date
of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be completed entirely in accordance
with the following approved plans: P245 - 235 PP01; P245-236 PP02; P245 -
237 PP03; P245-238 PP04; P245-239 PP05.
Main Issue
2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of No.18
Beechwood Drive (No.18).
Reasons
3. The development proposed is the construction of a small balcony platform with
balustrading set within a previously approved roof conversion to this substantial late
nineteenth century house. That consent (Ref 21/4926C) indicates that the dormer
window to which the proposed balcony is related was noted1 as ‘proposed dormer
and juliet balcony’ with no specific conditions relating to detailing. Drawings relating
to that permission indicate the balustrade was to be immediately adjacent to the
dual opening full height glazing of that dormer, such that the outward opening
casements which were in place at the time of my visit would be incapable of
opening.
4. The Council’s reason for refusal refers to a loss of privacy arising from overlooking
of a neighbouring garden from the proposed balcony, however, noting that the
1 Drawing ref: P245-210
Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/25/3370607
2
appellant indicates the decision notice was issued without a site visit, the
opportunities for overlooking from the already-approved window, or from the small
flat roof area proposed to be enclosed by balustrading2, are limited. The approved
window already overviews part of the front garden and part of the driveway of
No.18, which is adjacent to the public road, but does so at a significant distance.
The window cannot overview the private rear garden area of No.18 due to the
enclosing roof structures of the main house, so whilst the construction of the
balcony would extend the viewpoint towards the line of eaves3, the outlook would
be angled and contained by the enclosing roof structures, such that opportunities to
oversee comings and goings of No.18 would also be limited. I consider the views
afforded by the addition of the small balcony area would change very little from
those currently available. Overall, I do not consider that the development proposed
would discernibly change the extent of overview from the existing window or add to
a sense of being overlooked for occupiers of No.18.
5. I therefore find the proposal would not conflict with Policy SE1 of the Cheshire East
Local Plan Strategy 2017 or with Policy HOU12 of the Site Allocations and
Development Policies Document 2022, which seek to ensure appropriate levels of
privacy or, therefore, with the development plan as a whole. Consequently, taking
all matters raised into account, the appeal succeeds subject to the usual plans and
timing conditions. Given the very limited nature of the works, a condition as to
materials is not necessary.
Andrew Boughton
INSPECTOR
2 Which extends the viewing position by around 0.5m from the window face
3 A distance of around 0.6m from the face of the window.
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.