External balcony to replace previously approved Juliet balcony with external escape stair and privacy trellis

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 January 2026 by D Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001295 Westfield House, Long Street, Foston, NG32 2LD • 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 John and Isabel Chandler and Staton against the decision of South Kesteven District Council. • The application Ref is S25/0980. • The development proposed is external balcony to replace previously approved Juliet balcony with external escape stair and privacy trellis. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Applications for Costs 2. Applications for costs were made by John and Isabel Chandler and Staton against South Kesteven District Council. These applications are the subject of a separate Decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The proposal was amended during the course of the planning application to consist of a landing and spiral stair with the privacy trellis removed. However, the Council has confirmed that it did not carry out a further consultation following receipt of the amended plans. The notification letter sent out in relation to the appeal also reflects the description of the original proposal i.e. it refers to an external balcony and privacy trellis. 4. Although the Council made its decision on the basis of the amended plans, interested parties have not had the opportunity to comment on the amended proposals as part of the application process. The notifications sent out in respect of the appeal also do not reflect the amended scheme. 5. In the interests of fairness, I have proceeded to determine the appeal on the basis of the plans which have been subject to consultation, and not the revised plans. To do otherwise could prejudice unacceptably the interests of interested people and/or consultees who would not have been consulted on the amended proposals and who may have observations to make. 6. The appellant has been informed of this and has stated that the decision should be based on the original plans. Appeal Decision 6001295 2 Main Issues 7. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • Character and appearance of the host dwelling; and • Living conditions of neighbouring residents with regards to privacy. Reasons Character and Appearance 8. The appeal site consists of a large dwelling set in an extensive plot. The Council refers to a substantial rear extension, and the proposal would be constructed on the rear of this. 9. The design of the proposal is an angular feature projecting to the rear of the extended dwelling. The balcony would project some distance beyond the rear elevation and across much of the width of the rear gable wall. The stairway would also be distinctly separated from the rear elevation, which would further emphasise the scale of the proposal. The privacy trellis with obscured glazing would also project above the roofslope of the rear extension, which would introduce a jarring feature. 10. The proposal is not readily visible from the public realm. However, it would be an incongruous feature in views from nearby residential properties. 11. Although the dwelling has been extended previously, due to the size of the plot the proposal would not lead to a cramped or overdeveloped appearance of the dwelling. However, due to the awkward scale and design of the proposal in respect of the rear elevation, this would lead to significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the design requirements of Policy DE1 of the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2020 (the Local Plan). The proposal would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) with regards to achieving well- designed places. Living Conditions 12. There is an existing Juliet balcony at first floor level on the rear elevation which provides an elevated view of neighbouring gardens, in particular the garden of the dwelling of Hollis Barn. When the windows are open, this will enable a wide angle view of the neighbouring garden, for example when leaning over the railing of the balcony. 13. However, although the existing Juliet balcony enables an elevated view, the proposed balcony would project further to the rear. Due to this layout it may therefore provide a seating area for residents. Furthermore, due to this projection and potential use of the proposed balcony, this would enable a materially greater extent of intrusive overlooking of the neighbouring garden than the existing situation, with commensurate harm to the level of privacy that neighbouring residents could reasonably expect when using their garden. 14. The proposed privacy trellis would provide some shielding for the neighbouring property. However, this would not be sufficient to remove all views from the extended balcony. Neighbouring residents would still be aware of activity on the Appeal Decision 6001295 3 elevated balcony, which would exacerbate the perception of the intrusive nature of the proposal. 15. I therefore conclude that, due to its layout and design, the proposal would lead to significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents in respect of loss of privacy. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the amenity requirements of Policy DE1 of the Local Plan. The proposal would also conflict with the Framework in respect of providing a high standard of amenity for existing and future users of land and property. Other Matters 16. The room which would be served by the proposal is currently accessed only via a bedroom in the dwelling, which limits the functionality of the room. However, although the proposal would improve the use of accommodation in the dwelling, this private benefit would not be sufficient to outweigh the harms I have identified. Furthermore, suitable access to the room could be enabled by development of a more appropriate design. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. D Cross INSPECTOR