Appeal 3366758

The appeal is dismissed.

Works to the development have commenced on site. At the time of the site visit the single storey rear extension has been constructed with a pitched roof and appeared consistent with approval Ref 3237/23/HHO.

The appellant seeks to make a change to the approved plans to facilitate the use of the roof of the extension as an extended roof terrace.

The main issue is the effect of the revised design on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regards to privacy and noise and disturbance.

The approved scheme included a pitched roof to the proposed extension in common with the neighbouring properties either side. A small flat roof element was included which allowed for some outdoor space at this level.

The appeal property is part of a terrace, as the houses are narrow and closely spaced, there is a close relationship. The properties have small gardens and there is a degree of existing overlooking from upper floor windows.

The existing situation and the approved plans limit the space available in relation to the use of the terrace but also restricts the overlooking of the ends of the gardens of neighbouring properties.

While the privacy of some of the rear gardens is reduced due to the lane behind them, this does not apply to the adjoining property at [address], which benefits from a building at the rear of its garden, providing a greater degree of privacy.

The proposed extended roof terrace would enable direct, elevated views into neighbouring gardens on both sides, which is not possible with the approved smaller terrace.

Although there are some views from within the property the proposed terrace would allow for closer range views and due to the elevated position users of the terrace would be highly visible from the neighbouring gardens.

I accept that there are other examples of overlooking within the locality, however, I have considered the proposals in the context of this site and its neighbours. The arrangement of the garden and outbuilding at the neighbouring property are not directly comparable due to the size and arrangement of the terrace adjacent to the boundary and the existing planting.

The increased size of the terrace could potentially be used by more people than the approved terrace, which would possibly lead to increased noise at this level. However, I do not find that it would be significantly more harmful in this context than noise created within the existing garden or on the approved terrace.

Overall, I find that the proposed alterations to the plans would lead to a reduction in privacy for the neighbouring properties and would therefore conflict with Policy DEV1 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034.

With regards to screening, I have not been presented with any details of what could be provided, and it has not been demonstrated how this would limit the overlooking in this context.

I note that there have been no objections to the proposal, even with this being the case I have found conflict with the development plan in respect of privacy.

In respect of the visual impact of the proposal, the approved scheme has a pitch roof similar to the neighbouring properties. The Council did not raise any concerns with the amended design, and I accept their position. Even if the revised approach had less of a visual impact, the approved design is acceptable and therefore, I give this limited weight.

Communication during the application process is not a matter for consideration in terms of the determination of this appeal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.