Appeal 3357765

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a first-floor extension at [site address] , Devon, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/0849/FUL, subject to the following

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 approved plans: [name] (-) 10, 23:28:S/01, 23:28:S/02, 23:28:PL01 and 23:28:PL02.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

No site machinery or plant shall be operated, no construction or demolition processes shall be carried out and no deliveries shall be made to or from the site except between the hours of 08:00hrs to 18:00hrs Monday to Friday, 08:00hrs to 13:00hrs on Saturday, and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal upon the character of the area, and upon the living conditions at [address], with particular regard to privacy and overshadowing.

The appeal property is a detached, two-storey dwelling with a recessed, side attached garage built up to the common side boundary with [address]. It sits within a wider, fairly densely developed residential estate comprising a mix of detached, semi-detached, and terraced houses of various sizes, generally with open plan frontages. The proposal is to extend the dwelling sideways above the existing garage at first-floor level.

The appeal property is positioned near to the junction where [address] joins [address], a spine road running through the estate. It sits within a group of five, closely set dwellings ([address] and [address]) arranged in an echelon formation and angled against the alignment of the road. As a consequence, Nos 28 and 18 are fairly prominent within the vista along [address], when travelling north, as the main road sweeps past. From this viewpoint, the spatial separation between Nos 28 and 18 is evident due to the recessed position of the garage and the void between the two-storey scale of both at first-floor level.

The Council’s Householder’s Guide: Design of Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), adopted in 2024, highlights the potential harm from infilling the spaces between properties where an unwanted terracing effect within the street scene can be created. However, in this instance, although the proposed extension would unquestionably erode space to the side of the appeal property with an obvious narrowing of the gap with No 18, it would be stepped away from the side boundary with an overall distance to the flank wall of No 18 retained at almost 2m. When combined with the deeply recessed position of the extension, which itself would far exceed the 900mm minimum setback recommended within the SPD to ensure subservience, a clear and obvious separation and visual distinction between both dwellings would remain.

In addition, although there is a strong degree of cohesion throughout the wider estate, this is derived principally from the commonality of materials. I saw little evidence of any regimented development pattern in terms of the placement, alignment, or separation of buildings. In the absence of an established rhythm to the street scene, I do not consider the spatial arrangement between the appeal property and No 18 to be oversensitive to change.

Overall, I am satisfied that the extension would be seen as a proportionate and subservient addition that would appear neither uncharacteristic nor harmful to the local development pattern or appearance of the street scene. As such, I find no conflict with any of the criteria listed in Policy DG1of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 2005 (ELP) as far as they seek to ensure development respects and responds positively to the surrounding townscape and local distinctiveness.

The rear wall of the extension would run contiguous with the rear wall of the appeal property and in turn would align with the rear wall of [address]. There would be no rearward projection that would impose itself upon the amenities at No 18 in terms of visual impact or overshadowing.

There would be a rear facing bedroom window to the extension. This would afford an outlook directly over the rear garden of the appeal property and at an angle over the rear garden of No 18, principally towards its bottom half. Neither the proximity of this window to the boundary with No 18 nor its orientation and relationship with the neighbour’s garden would be unusual within the context of the wider estate. I am satisfied that it would not give rise to a degree of overlooking that would impact upon the neighbour’s existing levels of privacy.

There is an existing flank window to the side of No 18 facing the appeal property. I observed that its elevated position sits well below the alignment of the first-floor windows to the dwelling’s principal elevation. As such, given the conventional two-storey form of the dwellings in this immediate location, and the absence of any information to the contrary, I am not persuaded that this window serves any habitable space. Although the extension would encroach towards this window with some diminution of daylight levels received, a reasonable separation distance would remain such that I am satisfied that there would be no harm to the quality of amenity within the neighbour’s home.

Overall, I find that there would be no harm to the living conditions at [address] and therefore no conflict with ELP Policy DG4 as far as its criterion (b) seeks to safeguard residents’ amenity within their homes and gardens.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is needed for the avoidance of doubt and is in the interests of proper planning. In order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area a condition is required to ensure that the development is carried out in materials to match the existing. A condition limiting the hours of construction, as suggested by the Council, will safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.