Item No. 3
Application No:
P/09/1343/2
Application
Type:
Applicant:
Proposal:
Full
Location:
Parish:
Case Officer:
Date
Valid:
8th July 2009
Mr K Bass
Part retention and construction of raised timber decking over
patio and garden and erection of 1.75m high fence along
eastern boundary.
10 Outwoods Drive, Loughborough, LE11 3LT
Loughborough
Ward:
Loughborough
Outwoods Ward
Mrs L Winson
Tel No:
01509 634742
This application is brought to the Plans Committee at the request of Ward
Councillors Walker and Jukes following a recent ward referral report.
Description of the Application
This application seeks retrospective planning permission to retain an area of raised
decking to the rear of the dwelling. The decking is situated across the width of the
rear of the property, and extends some length into the garden. The property is one
half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings, which are the predominant house types
along Outwoods Drive. The ground level falls quite steeply to the rear of the
dwellings on the northern side of Outwoods Drive, with retaining walls used as an
original design feature in rear garden areas. The structure of the decking has been
completed, although the final aesthetic elements of the decking remain unfinished as
the applicant has postponed work whilst the application is determined.
A 2.4m boundary fence was originally proposed along the boundary with the
adjoining property, No8 Outwoods Drive. The occupier of No.8 objected to the
original proposal on the grounds that the fence would be over dominant and cause a
loss of light to the rear living room window of No.8, which is situated adjacent to
the common boundary. At the request of officers, the height of the proposed fence
was reduced to 2m. A ward referral report was then issued on this basis with a
recommendation that retrospective planning permission be granted.
However, the occupiers of No.8 raised further objections to this, as the fence would
be situated on top of the decking, making it actually appear approximately 2.3m in
height from the garden area closest to No.8. Following site meetings with the
Ward Councillors, and at their suggestion, the application was amended to reduce
the height of the proposed fence to 1.75m above the level of the proposed decking
to the point where the steps lead down to lower decking. The fencing would then
follow the natural slope of the land for an additional 2m and finish 1.5m above the
level of the decking where it steps into the garden around the retained tree. No new
additional boundary fencing would be erected beyond this point. Open protective
19
fencing around the decking is 1m with newel and handrails. This is the proposal now
under consideration.
Development Plan Policies and other material considerations
•
Development Plan Policies
Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (adopted 12th January 2004) (saved policies)
Policy EV/1 – Design – seeks to ensure a high standard of design for developments
which respect the character of the area, nearby occupiers and is compatible in mass,
scale and layout.
Policy H/17 – Extensions to dwellings – seeks to ensure that the development meets
the following criteria:-
•
•
It remains compatible in scale, mass, design and use of materials with the
original dwelling;
•
It would not appear as an intrusive or incongruous feature in the street scene
to the detriment of visual amenities.
•
It would not prove detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of nearby
properties by reason of overshadowing, dominance, or substantial loss of
privacy or light;
Other Policies
The Borough Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions gives
detailed guidance on design issues involved in meeting the requirements of Policy
H/17.
The Borough Council’s Leading in Design Supplementary Planning Document also
gives detailed guidance in meeting the requirements of Policy H/17, particularly when
protecting privacy to neighbouring dwellings. The use of screening and planting
within proposals can limit overlooking and protect private rear gardens.
Responses of Statutory Consultees
The highway authority raises no objections to the proposal.
Other Comments Received
Ward Councillors Walker and Jukes have met with both the applicant and the
objectors, and expressed concern that a 2m high fence would have an overbearing
impact on the amenities of No.8. The applicants have therefore now amended the
application to provide a 1.75m high fence as shown on the amended plans. A further
consultation was carried out, with the occupiers of No.8 continuing to raise
objection to the amended proposal on the following grounds:
20
•
•
•
•
•
The 1.75m high fence would not provide adequate privacy into the lounge of
No.8.
The fence height is measured from the deck height, not ground level. As the
ground slopes, the effective height of the fence would not be 1.75m, but
2.75m from the ground level of No.8.
The existing boundary fence follows the ground height of No.8, meaning the
submitted drawing is incorrect in showing where the ground slopes. The
ground actually slopes from the start of the patio, resulting in the height of
the fence on the second and third decks being 2.75m overall.
The submitted drawing shows the deck level as being 1400mm long, but it is
actually 2.4m long at its furthest point. At this point, the fence will be 2.75m
high, but on the drawing it is neither 1.75m from deck or ground height.
On the lowest point of the proposed drawing, the fence is only 1.5m high
which will cause a loss of privacy.
The occupiers of No.8 have proposed that in order to make the development
acceptable, the deck is dropped to keep privacy issues to a minimum. The eye
line of the average person should also be kept below the existing fence line.
Consideration of the Planning Issues
The Impact of the Development on Visual Amenity
The decking is situated to the rear of the property and cannot be viewed from any
public domain. It therefore has no impact on the visual amenity of the street scene.
The Impact of the development on No.8 Outwoods Drive
The majority of the decking is situated over the existing flat patio area to the rear of
the property, before the ground slopes away. This section of the decking is
approximately 25-30cm higher than the existing ground level. This is because it is
situated on wooden support joists, which raises the finished height of the decking.
The applicant has submitted photographic evidence to indicate this. The General
Permitted Development Order (2008) makes provision for householders to
construct a raised platform area under permitted development rights, providing the
platform has a height not greater than 30cm from ground level. Therefore, if
constructed on its own, the section of decking over the original patio area before
the ground begins to slope would not require planning permission.
Permitted development rights also allow householders to erect a 2m high boundary
fence from ground level without requiring planning permission. This remains the
case regardless of any differences in ground level with neighbouring properties. For
example, if there was a 50cm difference in the ground levels between two
neighbouring properties, the occupier of the property on the higher ground could
erect a 2m high boundary fence, which would actually appear 2.5m in height from the
neighbouring property, without requiring planning permission. Permitted
development rights are a material consideration in this case, as the provision of a
21
1.75m high fence along the section of the decking which covers the existing patio
area adjacent to the property would, due to the height of the decking, have an
overall height of approximately 2.05m from natural ground level. Therefore, only
5cm in height of the fence in this area would require planning permission, and again,
this would be regardless of any difference in ground levels with the neighbouring
property. When assessing the impact of the additional 5cm in height, it would be
difficult to sustain a reason for refusal on the grounds that it would be detrimental to
the amenities of No.8. A 1.75m fence along the top of the decking would be at the
eye level of the average person, therefore reducing any overlooking and loss of
privacy issues. The neighbour’s fence with its trellis added onto it would still be
higher than the applicants proposed fence at this point.
The end section of the top deck and the location of the steps down onto the lower
deck, is where the ground level slopes significantly and is where the decking is higher
than 30cm. This is because these sections of the decking project out over the
existing retaining wall underneath. Whilst the development is treated as a whole
structure and therefore requires planning permission, due to permitted development
rights, this area of the decking is the only element of the development which can be
realistically assessed at this time. The lower decking area is L- shaped, with the
shortest section, which is situated adjacent to the common boundary, being 1.4m in
length and the longest section being 2.4m in length. The longer section is situated
the highest from the existing ground level; however this element is stepped in from
the common boundary by 1.7m. Due to the sloping nature of the land in this area,
this would be the section of the development where a 1.75m fence would have the
most impact on No.8; however the amended plan submitted does not propose a
fence along the stepped-in section of the decking.
The height of the proposed fence would slope downwards with the steps, to prevent
any over looking, with the fence being 1.5m high at the end of the shorter section of
the lower deck. There would be some views from this area of decking into the
bottom garden area of No. 8, however existing landscaping and the neighbour’s
trellis on top of the solid boundary fence limits this view. A view into the bottom or
rear garden areas of neighbouring properties is common from most dwellings, and it
is not considered that this proposal would result in a serious loss of amenity or
privacy to the neighbour. The privacy to private patio areas situated immediately
adjacent to neighbouring properties is of foremost concern, which would be
protected in this case. It is therefore not considered that planning permission could
be refused on the possible loss of privacy to the bottom garden area of No.8.
No.8 also has a raised decking area to the rear, which is situated away from the
boundary with No.10 where the ground slopes to the rear of the properties. Due
to the distance away from the decking area of No.8, it is not considered that the
fence situated adjacent to the steps and lower decking area of No.10, would have a
significantly adverse impact on the private amenity area of No.8 as to warrant a
refusal of planning permission.
The Impact of the Development on No.12 Outwoods Drive
22
The decking over the patio area also overlooks the rear of No.12, which is currently
undergoing a two storey side and single storey rear extension. Following the
completion of the development at No.12, there would be a kitchen window situated
adjacent to the boundary with No.10. There is a narrow access passage between
Nos. 10 & 12, and a fence and entrance gates into the rear gardens of both
properties is shown on the approved plans for the extension to No.12. There is an
agreement between the occupiers of these properties that the fence will be erected
following the completion of the development at No.12, which is not possible at the
present time due to the ongoing construction works. However, as screening is
required to provide privacy to No.12, a condition is also recommended which
requires a 1.8m high close boarded gate/fence to be erected along the north western
boundary of the decking following the completion and occupation of the
development at No.12. The occupants of No.12 have written to confirm a 1.8m high
fence along the western boundary would be acceptable.
Overall, whilst the fence along the decking would have some minimal impact on the
outlook from No.8, on balance, taking into account all material considerations such
as permitted development rights, and the location of the highest part of the decking
in the rear garden, it is not considered that there would be sufficient detriment to
residential amenity to justify a refusal of planning permission. The proposal
therefore complies with policies EV/1 and H/17 of the Borough of Charnwood Local
Plan 2004.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant Conditionally - Recommendation - subject to the following conditions:
1 - The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the details and
specifications included in the submitted application, as amended by the revised
drawing received by the local planning authority on 10th September 2009 and
showing a lower boundary treatment to the south eastern boundary with number 8
Outwoods Drive.
REASON: To make sure that the scheme takes the form agreed by the authority and
thus results in a satisfactory form of development.
2 - Within 2 months of the date of this permission, the close boarded fence shown
on the amended plan shall be erected along the eastern boundary of the raised
decking area situated adjacent to the common boundary with No.8 Outwoods
Drive. The fence shall then be retained at all times thereafter.
REASON: To prevent serious harm to the residential amenity of the occupiers of
the neighbouring property.
3 - The new 1.8m high close boarded fence or gate on the boundary with 12
Outwoods Drive shall be erected following the completion of the extensions works
to that dwelling and shall then be retained at all times thereafter.
REASON: To prevent any overlooking into the neighbouring property, in the
interests of residential amenity.
23
Informatives
1
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES RELEVANT TO THIS DECISION - Policies EV/1
and H/17 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (adopted 12th January 2004),
Leading in Design SPD 2006, and House Extensions SPD 2001 have been considered
in reaching a decision on this application. The proposed development complies with
the requirements of these saved Local Plan policies and there are no other material
considerations which are of significant weight in reaching a decision on this
application.
2
Planning permission has been granted for this development because the Council has
determined that, although representations have been received against the proposal,
it is generally in accord with the terms of the above-mentioned policies, the
Council's adopted Leading in Design Supplementary Document and the Council's
adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions and, therefore, no
harm would arise such as to warrant the refusal of planning permission.
24
This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey
digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her
Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright.
Licence No: 100023558
This copy has been produced specifically for Council
purposes only. No further copies may be made.
P/09/1343/2
10 Outwoods Drive, Loughborough, LE11 3LT
1:500
24
5b
Application No:
Location:
Scale:
14
57.0m
G
4
1
25