Landscaping works to rear garden (retrospective application)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 July 2026 by S Manson DipTP MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009625 15 Burslam Street, Congleton CW12 3AF • 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 Kerry Jackson against the decision of Cheshire East Council. • The application Ref is 26/0400/HOUS. • The development proposed is landscaping works to rear garden (retrospective application). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure and Main Issues 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, which seeks retrospective planning permission. The main issues in regard to which are the effect of the development on a) the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 17 Burslam Street (No.17), with specific regard to privacy; and b) the character and appearance of the area with specific regard to protected trees. Reasons for the Recommendation Living Conditions 3. Levelled terraces have been created at the top of the rear garden embankment to provide formal seating areas. Access is gained via steps that have also been formed along the edge of the embankment. Owing to their elevated position, the terraces enable users to obtain clear views into the rear bedroom and patio windows, and over the lower rear garden of No. 17. This leads to both an actual loss of privacy and a perceived one by virtue of the intrusive presence of people standing and sitting in these areas. This unacceptably diminishes the quality of these areas, and the enjoyment of them, for occupiers of No. 17. 4. While the existing screen provides a degree of mitigation, it is of limited height and is only to one side of the boundary. It does not therefore sufficiently prevent views of the rear elevation windows and garden of No. 17. Due to the elevated and open nature of the terrace, no additional screening could adequately overcome the harm identified, with neighbouring occupiers remaining acutely aware of activity at this level, giving rise to an uncomfortable perception of overlooking. 5. Whilst the embankment may previously have been capable of occasional use, its steeply sloping nature would have limited the extent, comfort and duration of such Appeal Decision 6009625 2 activity. By contrast, the appeal scheme has materially altered the usability of this part of the site through the creation of formal, level and therefore more readily accessible amenity areas. The development has therefore had an unacceptably adverse effect on the privacy enjoyed by the occupants of No. 17, to the detriment of the quality of their living conditions. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policies HOU 12 and HOU 13 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, 2022 (SADPD). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure development does not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of adjoining residential properties through loss of privacy. Character and Appearance 6. The appeal property forms one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. It appears to have been extended at single storey to the rear, and benefits also from an ample, paved side garden. To the rear of the appeal site is an area of protected woodland which provides a verdant backdrop to the surrounding development and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. 7. Given the extent of excavation required to create the level platforms and steps, it is evident that substantial groundworks have taken place in close proximity to the protected trees. However, no persuasive or up-to-date arboricultural evidence has been provided to demonstrate the extent to which root protection areas have been affected, the measures employed to safeguard the trees during construction, or whether any mitigation measures would be capable of ensuring their long-term health and retention. 8. The upper terrace introduces a formal seating area adjacent the canopy spread of the trees. The proximity of this area thereto will likely give rise to issues associated with leaf fall, seasonal debris, shading and other characteristics commonly associated with mature woodland. Consequently, there would be an increased risk of future pressure for pruning, crown reduction or other works to improve the usability of the terrace. Such pressure could undermine the long-term retention of and contribution the trees make to the visual and character qualities of the area. 9. I cannot be satisfied therefore that the works have not damaged, or would not prejudice, the health, longevity and retention of the protected trees. Adverse effects thereon leading to their loss would unacceptably affect the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal fails to accord with Policy SE 5 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030, 2017 and Policy ENV 6 of the SADPD which amongst other things, seek to maximise the protection and continued health of trees. It is also contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which recognises that, amongst other things, trees make an important contribution to the character and quality of urban environments. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. The appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not attract sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. S Manson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6009625 3 Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR