WELSH Government planning inspectors have upheld Blaenau Gwent planners decision to refuse plans for a first floor extension at a house in Ebbw Vale.

Back in March, Owain Bolter was told by Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council planners that they had refused his proposal for first floor rear house extension, provision of a car port and proposed balcony with privacy screen at 58 Pennant Street in Ebbw Vale.

The new upper level would provide a bedroom above a kitchen.

The council said they had refused the application because the raised deck and associated privacy screen would cause an “overbearing impact” to the living conditions of neighbours.

The planning officers believed this would cause “material harm” and is contrary to the council’s Local Development Plan.

In April Mr Bolter appealed against the decision.

His planning agent, Paul Parsons explained that a site visit had been organised at the house on January 18 when the application was discussed with planning officers.

Mr Parsons said: “We discussed pulling back the balustrade to a halfway point and lowering down the deck by 400 millimetres to make the scheme acceptable with the planning authority.”

Due to this, revised drawings were made, and the decision deadline was extended from February to March.

The decision notice was issued on March 11.

Mr Parsons said: “To our shock it is a refusal.

“There was no hint the application would be refused we had worked hard to get it approved.

“We were not given the option to remove the deck (to) get approval for the rear extension only.”

Mr Parsons believed that he raised deck and privacy screen were no different: “than having a fence.”

PEDW (Planning and Environment Decisions Wales) planning inspector Nia Jones visited the site on June 4.

Ms Jones said:  “The appeal site is a mid-terrace property in a densely developed residential area.”

Ms Jones explained that the landscape of the area means that gardens at the back of the properties are “lower” than the front street side of the buildings.

To enter their homes from the garden residents, have to go up steps.

Ms Jones said: “At its intended height, the privacy screen would be commensurate in height to a fence that might typically be erected in a rear garden.

“However, the surface level of the proposed easternmost lower-level decked area would sit at about the same level as the highest part of the property’s side brick wall, and the top level of the existing side boundary fence at number 56.”

Ms Jones explained that the overall height would be four metres above the background level of the neighbours at number 56.

Ms Jones said: “Accordingly, it would be a substantially taller structure than an ordinary garden fence when viewed from that property.

“Given its intended height and depth, would be an overbearing and oppressive feature which would unacceptably enclose the neighbouring garden.

“I conclude that the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at number 56.”

Due to this she dismissed the appeal.