Appeal 3309240

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ground floor front extension and new garage at Sunyani, [site address] , Bishopsteignton [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref 22/00247/VAR dated 7 February 2022 without complying with conditions No 2 and No 4 set out in planning permission Ref 14/01530/FUL granted on 13 August 2014 by Teignbridge District Council, but subject to the following condition:

The approved plans for the development are: • Location Plan- Drawing numbered 1A • Site Plan- Drawing numbered 2A • Block Plan and Site Sections- Drawing numbered 3A • Plans at [name] and [name] numbered 4A • [name] numbered 5A • [name] numbered 6B • [name] numbered 7A • Section A- Drawing numbered 8A • Section B- Drawing numbered 9A • Section C- Drawing numbered 10A • [name] numbered 11A • [name] numbered 12A • [name] numbered 13B • [name] numbered 14A • Proposed Site Section at Neighbour and [name] numbered 16A • Plan of [name] numbered 17A • Land Registry Plan

Permission was granted by the Council in 2014 for ground floor extension and new garage. The application forms confirmed that the development had been undertaken at the time the application was submitted but without complying with all of the plans listed under Condition 2 and without complying with Condition 4 relating to the erection of a louvered screen prior to first use of the balcony. I shall therefore consider the appeal on the basis of seeking retrospective permission for the development of land carried out without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the conditions are necessary to protect the living conditions of the adjoining neighbours at Virgates, with particular regard to overlooking and loss of privacy.

The appeal property is a detached house on the north side of [site address] . The appeal property and a small number of surrounding properties are accessed off a private road, leading off [site address] . The road slopes upwards from [site address] , so that the appeal property is at a higher level than its neighbour to the east, at Virgates. The houses are all set at a higher level than the road with sloping front and rear gardens. Reflecting their elevated position, there are extensive views over the estuary from the front of the appeal property and its front garden area, and this is the same for many of the surrounding properties. As a result, a number of the properties have raised terraces and balconies to the front of their properties.

The permission granted in 2014 included for a balcony leading off the living area at the front of the house but subject to a requirement for a louvred screen along part of the side elevation to screen views to Virgates and protect the amenities of these neighbours. The balcony has been erected but the louvred screen has not been undertaken. The Appellant has referred to the provision of a sliding opaque screen which is used when there are people on the balcony but I agree with both the Appellant and the Council that this can only be regarded as a voluntary arrangement and there is no planning mechanism which could be used to control the use of such an arrangement. [name] note that the Appellant has confirmed that he will use this sliding screen in the interest of a satisfactory neighbour relationship, I am unable to give weight to this proposal and it is therefore necessary for me to consider the position on the basis of whether the fixed screen is required to protect the privacy of the neighbours.

From my site visit and from the balcony there are views over the neighbour’s front garden and driveway, but these are open to views from those travelling up and down the access road, and from a number of the other houses. Although the front of the neighbour’s house can be seen from the raised terrace, the angle of view and distance limit the views into the windows and therefore into the rooms (a bedroom and the sitting room). Views are also possible over part of the neighbours’ garden, but similar views are already available from the rear of the Appellant’s property and rear garden.

I am therefore satisfied that the fixed louvred screen is not necessary to protect the living conditions of the neighbours at Virgates, with particular regard to overlooking and loss of privacy. The removal of this requirement for a fixed screen does not conflict with Policies S1 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, with particular reference to paragraph 130, all of which amongst other matters seek to protect the amenities of existing and future occupiers.

I have noted the concerns raised by the neighbour in respect of a number of matters, but my decision is necessarily based on the planning merits of the case before me.

As this decision grants a new planning permission for the development, it is necessary for me to review the conditions as originally imposed to consider those which may still be applicable alongside any I consider are necessary to impose. Most of the conditions relate to the construction of the development, which has now been completed and therefore it is not necessary for me to reapply these conditions. For the reasons given above, I do not consider that it is necessary to require a permanent fixed screen, although the new plans show the screen that the Appellant has proposed to use, in the interests of neighbourliness. The only condition I shall impose is to list the approved plans, amended as sought, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of good planning.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.