Appeal 3331143

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear first floor extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 23/01285/HOU, dated 10 July 2023 and subject to the condition that the bedroom window in the rear elevation opposite Nos. 3 & [address] shall be obscure glazed and in part fixed shut in accordance with details first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The window shall thereafter be permanently retained in that form.

The application refers to the ‘retention and completion’ of the extension. However, as ‘retention’ is not development under planning legislation and the development has now been completed I consider that the appeal application is more appropriately described as simply ‘a rear first floor extension’.

The main issues are (i) the effect of the development on the setting of existing designated heritage assets in the form of the [name] listed buildings Nos. 3 and [address] and on the character and appearance of the Shaldon Conservation Area, and (ii) the effect on the living conditions for the occupiers of Nos. 3 and [address] as regards privacy.

On the first issue, the Council considers that the first floor extension does not sit comfortably with its surroundings. In particular, the difference in height with the extension to No. [address] is considered to be jarring and the view from the listed buildings is cluttered.

However, I saw on my visit that this part of Shaldon has a tight knit urban grain with an irregular spatial pattern, characteristic of the organic growth typical of older and traditional settlements. The Ordnance Survey Block Plan (Figure 1 in the Grounds of Appeal) clearly illustrates the different sizes and shapes of property curtilages, the mix of uses and the ostensibly ‘awkward’ relationships between the buildings that as regards built form are all part and parcel of the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, in the view from the first floor window of No. [address] I was able to observe the miscellany of roof forms with a wide range of designs, pitches and heights.

Given this context, I see no problem with the higher ridge of the appeal development compared to that of the extension to the adjoining No. 21. This difference is consistent with the variety to which I refer above and sits more comfortably against the much larger roof of the adjoining [name] building than would a ridge at the same height as that of No. 23, even in the unlikely event that this would be technically feasible. I additionally consider the design of the window to be appropriate and its size proportionate to the rear wall.

On this issue I therefore conclude that no harm has been caused either to the setting of Nos. 3 and [address] or to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Accordingly there would be no conflict with Policies S2 and EN5 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 adopted in 2014 (‘The Local Plan’) or with Government policy on conserving and enhancing the historic environment in Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (‘the Framework’).

On the second issue, it is axiomatic from my observation of the historic development pattern in relation to the Council’s heritage objection that there will be overlooking of the nearby rear gardens from the first floor windows of the properties. This particularly occurs when the buildings adjoin one another (for example Nos 3 and [address]). However, in a tightly knit development pattern, as is the case here, it is also inevitable that privacy will be limited where the facing rear elevations are relatively close.

In the appeal scheme, the bedroom window would be set back a further 2.3m from Nos. 3 & [address] than the window at No. 23 and the overlooking can be mitigated by a condition requiring the window to be fixed shut below 1.7m above the bedroom floor. I acknowledge the Council’s view that obscure glazing to a bedroom window is not ideal for the occupiers of the dwelling. However, in a situation where the development is to provide family accommodation in a small dwelling on a heavily constrained site I consider it a reasonable compromise.

On this issue, I conclude on balance that the development would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of Nos. 3 and [address] as regards privacy in conflict with Local Plan Policies S1, S2 & WE8 and paragraph 135f) of the Framework. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the objections of the occupiers of No. [address]. However, on balance I consider that provided the heritage assets are safeguarded there needs to be a flexibility of approach and recognition that a similarity with the prevailing standards in an historic area as opposed to modern day requirements may often be appropriate. 2

For the reasons explained the appeal is allowed. In granting permission I have imposed the aforementioned condition regarding obscure glazing of the rear window. Normally in the interests of certainty and proper planning I would also impose a condition requiring the submitted plans to be consistent with the development as built. However, whilst the Council has commented on some inconsistency between the submitted plans and the extension as built, it has not refused permission on the basis of this being unacceptable. Given these circumstances I consider it expedient not to impose this condition.