Installation of external spiral staircase

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 June 2026 by J Reed MPlan MRTPI Decision by B Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008005 2 Kirkstone Court, Chapel Hill, Ambleside, Westmorland and Furness LA22 9EB • 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 Miss Amanda Cousins (Teacher) against the decision of Lake District National Park Authority. • The application Ref is 7/2025/5566. • The development proposed is installation of external spiral staircase. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. In the interests of clarity, I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 3 Kirkstone Court with specific regard to privacy. Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The appeal dwelling and 3 Kirkstone Court (No 3) are attached by virtue of their terraced relationship. The properties are, however, staggered, with the rear elevation of No 3 projecting further than the appeal dwelling. The proposed staircase would be attached to the appeal dwelling’s existing balcony via a platform, which would project rearwards. 6. No 3 possesses a window to its side elevation which faces towards the appeal dwelling and serves the living area. Presently, there is a degree of mutual overlooking between the appeal dwelling’s balcony and No 3’s side window. However, views gained are oblique due to the dwelling’s stepped relationship. In contrast the proposed staircase due to its projected position would allow users direct views into No 3’s living area. This would result in a significant reduction in privacy to this room and would be likely to make this space less pleasant to use as a result. Appeal Decision 6008005 2 7. I note the appellant’s willingness to implement frosted or opal laminated glass to the balustrade to the adjacent balcony. Furthermore, users of the staircase would gain views into the living room for a limited period, described by the appellant as brief and incidental. However, the proposal would result in extremely close and direct invasive views that would inevitably erode the current privacy enjoyed by the neighbouring occupiers. As such, the offered mitigation would not mitigate the ability for staircase users to gain harmful views into No 3’s living area. 8. To conclude the proposed balcony would harm the living conditions of the occupants of 3 Kirkstone Court with specific regard to privacy. The proposed development would therefore conflict with Policy 06 of the Lake District National Park Local Plan 2020-2035 (2021). This seeks amongst other things for development to not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjoining residents and users. 9. The proposed development would also fail to accord with the guidance of the Lake District Design Code (2023) which, amongst other things requires development to protect amenity. Other Matters 10. I note the appellant’s case that the staircase could provide an additional means of escape in the event of a fire. I am not aware of an existing problem in terms of fire safety at the appeal site, or of any requirements that the development should be permitted for this reason. I also note the appellant’s case stating that the staircase could provide a safe and practical means of access from the first floor to the garden for their children. However, I am not persuaded that this could not be achieved by other means that do not harm the neighbour’s living conditions. 11. I have also had regard to the appellant’s submission that there is the lack of an objection from the Parish Council. However, the absence of objections is a neutral factor in the balance and does not preclude a full and proper assessment of the planning merits of the case. I also note the appellants willingness to agree to change the proposal’s materials. However, this would not alleviate my concerns in regard to the main issue of living conditions. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. The proposals would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed. J Reed APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. B Plenty (INSPECTOR)