Appeal 3287405

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single-storey extension at [site address] , TOTNES, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2662/21/HHO, dated 5 July 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 200-02 (Existing Floor Plan and Elevations); 200-03 (Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations).

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces and fenestration of the extension hereby permitted shall match those materials and colour of the external surfaces and fenestration used in the existing building.

An application for costs was made by [name] and [name] against South Hams District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and the effect on neighbours’ living conditions with particular regard to obtrusive light.

The appeal concerns [site address] (No 2), a semi-detached barn-style bungalow that is part of the recently completed [address] development located towards the eastern outskirts of Totnes. No 2 is situated at the northern edge of the [address] estate, bound by [address] to the north and by the gardens of mid-to-late 20th century bungalow housing that front Courtfield to the west. [address] marks a discernible transition between the settlement edge of Totnes and the open countryside of the [name] beyond.

[address] development is comprised of detached and semi-detached dwellings, of varying detailed design and material treatment, presenting a cohesive aesthetic of single and two-storey dwellings that evoke the architectural language of agricultural barn-style or vernacular cottage-like buildings, albeit contemporary domestic ones. The material treatment and overall form of No 2 lend it a barn-like appearance, causing it to sit comfortably withing the context of the wider [address] development.

The proposal is to add a single-storey ‘garden room’ at the western end of No

The extension would occupying a small patio area tucked to the side of the site, where existing boundary walls, fencing and garaging provide a high degree of containment. The lower ridge height and set-back from the extant building’s principal elevations would off set the scale of the proposed extension and cause it to appear subservient and unobtrusive. Compared with the pattern of fenestration at No 2 and other properties within the wider estate, I do not consider the amount of glazing would be harmfully out of place.

Continual rooflines and flat gable ends are not a specific feature of the [address] development, nor are they a-typical of traditional barns. In my judgement, the scale, design and material treatment of the proposal would ensure the appeal building retains its barn-like character and continued assimilation with the character of the [address] development.

At night, when the proposed extension is occupied, light would inevitably emit from the sliding doors on the south and west elevations and from the horizontal obscure-glazed window facing [address]. In my judgement the intervening distances, boundary screening, size and number of extant windows would limit any harmful impact on local amenity. The proximity of a tall streetlight I observed immediately outside the appeal site on the [address] pavement edge, reinforced my view that the light emitted from the proposal would not be obtrusive.

The relative containment of the appeal site, in combination with the height of respective plot boundaries and distance to nearby properties would, in my judgement, ensure no harm in respect of overlooking, overshadowing or noise disturbance. While the garden available to the occupiers of No 2 would be smaller, the proposed extension would be over a patio area, leaving planting and grassed areas that would not be markedly small. That permitted development rights were removed does not prohibit the extension of properties per se. Informed by consideration of the proposals, location, and evidence relevant to this case alone, my decision to allow an extension at No 2 does not justify indiscriminate extensions or set a precedent across the wider estate.

I therefore find that the proposal would be accordance with the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014 – 2034, adopted March 2019 (JLP). Notably, [name] DEV1, DEV2, DEV20 and DEV23 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure development proposals meet good standards of design, using materials and design solutions that are resilient to their context and have proper regard to the wider development context; avoid significant and adverse landscape and visual impacts; avoid safeguard the amenity of local communities; and, limit the impact of light pollution on local amenity. I likewise find no conflict with the design and quality policies within the National Planning Policy Framework, 2021, notably at paragraphs 134 and 135.

I have imposed conditions specifying the relevant drawings and time limits as these provide certainty. I have also added a condition that ensures details of materials, including colour, match the existing building in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of No 2 and the surrounding area.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.