Raised garden decking at 35 Charles Street, Tonypandy

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission to retain a replacement raised timber deck in the rear garden.

“APPLICATION DETAILS Full planning permission is sought for the retention of a raised timber decking area to the rear of 35 Charles Street, Tonypandy. The decking, which is south-facing, has been constructed from timber and replaces a previous timber deck that occupied the site for in excess of 10 years. The former structure had deteriorated due to its age and condition.”

“APPLICATION NUMBER – 26/0219/FUL REPORT Access to the decking is provided from the living room via existing patio doors. The raised platform extends along the full length of the existing two-storey rear extension and projects approximately 4m beyond the rear elevation. The final 1m of this projection comprises steps providing access to the lower garden area. The decking spans the full width of the rear elevation, measuring approximately 5m.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a two-storey mid-terraced home with a lower rear garden, and nearby properties have similar raised gardens and decking.

“An enclosed garden is positioned at a lower ground level to the southern facing rear elevation with this extending approximately 14m to the rear boundary which abuts a rear access lane.”

“Neighbouring properties in the immediate vicinity are all of a similar scale and design to the application property and those immediately to the west and east of the site are of a comparable ground level with gardens set below the finished floor level of their respective properties. There are a variety of structures within the street scene including a number of raised decking areas and elevated access steps.”

Officer report

Planning history

No recent or relevant applications were recorded for the site.

“There are no recent or relevant applications on record with this site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the decking was considered acceptable in visual, residential amenity, ecological and highway safety terms, subject to conditions.

“RECOMMENDATION: GRANT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS BELOW:”

“REASONS: The application is considered to comply with the relevant policies of the Local Development Plan in respect of its visual impact and the impact it has upon the amenity and privacy of the neighbouring residential properties subject to condition and would not result in any significant adverse impact upon ecology or highway safety.”

Officer report

Effect on neighbours

Privacy screens were proposed to address overlooking, while officers concluded the decking would not cause significant overbearing effects or unacceptable loss of light.

“LDP Policy AW5 requires that new developments should not have a significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The Council’s SPG for Householder Development also sets out that decking or balconies should not result in overlooking of neighbouring property and would not normally be permitted where it can be seen from a variety of public viewpoints, nor where it has a detrimental impact upon neighbouring properties.”

“APPLICATION NUMBER – 26/0219/FUL REPORT constructed in obscure-glazing to a height of 1.8m from the raised decking floor level on the western and eastern elevations to ensure an appropriate level of privacy is maintained whilst allowing light to pass through the structure, thereby reducing any potential impact on the neighbouring amenities of both adjoining properties.”

Officer report

Objection received

A neighbour objected that the decking reduced light, overlooked the home, invaded privacy and felt intimidating and unsafe.

“- Taken light from my patio room. - Looking directly into my kitchen and this is causing so much stress.”

“APPLICATION NUMBER – 26/0219/FUL REPORT - I have a 3-storey house, the build of decking is 2 tiers high directly looking in and 5 foot past my extension, such an invasion of privacy. - It's so big and intimidating and over us, makes us feel unsafe, and at night when standing out kitchen it's frightening as feels like be watched.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support of the applicant’s proposal.

Committee decision

The committee approved the application in line with the recommendation but removed the condition requiring privacy screening because it considered it unnecessary.

“The Head of Major Development and Investment presented the application to Committee and following consideration it was RESOLVED to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation of the Director, Housing and Regeneration, subject to the removal of condition 3 requiring screening, as Members were of the view that this condition was not necessary to make the development acceptable..”

Minutes