Installation of raised decking at rear of property and stepped access to conservatory without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 23/01213/FUL, dated 8 December 2023

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 November 2025 by C Cooper-Young MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000758 146 Athelstan Road, Southampton SO19 4DF • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land carried out without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr Theodore Carrasco against the decision of Southampton City Council. • The application Ref 24/00595/MMA, dated 28 May 2024, was refused by notice dated 27 August 2025. • The application sought planning permission for installation of raised decking at rear of property and stepped access to conservatory without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 23/01213/FUL, dated 8 December 2023. • The condition in dispute is No 2 which states that: “The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the schedule attached below …” (Schedule: 274/06B Elevational Plan, 274/04B Floor Plan, 274/05B Floor Plan). • The reason given for the condition is: “For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Background and Main Issue 2. The appellant seeks to regularise the development already carried out, which differs from the design of that approved. 3. The main issue is the effect of the revised design upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No 144 Athelstan Road in respect of privacy. Reasons 4. The appeal site is a two-storey detached dwelling with attached garage and a modest porch. The frontage is comprised of a block drive and low brick boundary wall and planting. The rear garden has a mix of hard and soft landscaping which follows the natural slope of the land. 5. The site lies within a suburban residential area characterised by semi-detached and detached dwellings of two predominant styles, with relatively uniform mass and spacing. To the rear of the appeal site the land falls away to the Athelstan Road Allotments, railway lines and the River Itchen. 6. A deck area and access stairway has been erected to the rear elevation which due to the topography of the land is raised above ground level. The deck area sits atop a flat roofed music room which extends outward from the basement. This lower Appeal Decision 6000758 2 ground floor room opens onto a patio area and the stairway to the decked area above. 7. A modestly sized raised planter and guardrail is proposed to be constructed in timber on the area of the deck farthest from the host property and adjacent to the boundary with No 144, to mitigate any loss of privacy. 8. The Council consider that the monitoring of planting would not meet the six tests as outlined at paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I disagree, whilst it may be onerous to monitor the condition due to the rear garden location of the proposed planter, I am of the view that an appropriately worded condition requiring the details of planting, maintenance and retention of the planter, would meet the six tests. 9. The deck area I observed extended to just off the boundary with No 144 and relocated steps to a side access door. As a consequence of these changes, a larger, level space for occupation has been created. Given the close proximity to the boundary activity on the extended deck would increase the perception of being overlooked. 10. The appellants had helpfully marked out the area to be occupied by the raised planter. However, even when stood at this point, I found that the planter would not fully prevent overlooking of the main living rooms of No 144 and I was able to stand and look directly into this primary living space. 11. I am aware of the comments contained within the Officer Report for 23/01213/FUL regarding the levels of mutual overlooking. However, I have based the decision on my observations of the site. Whilst recognising that Athelstan Road is in a built-up area where some degree of mutual overlooking might be expected, in this case the level of intrusion would be unacceptable. 12. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 144 Athelstan Road. Accordingly, the development would be contrary to the requirements of Policy SDP1 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (2015), which seeks, amongst other things, to protect the amenity and living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. C Cooper-Young INSPECTOR