Appeal 6000621

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit, the roof terrace had already been constructed and an external staircase was in place. Whilst these elements exist on site, the appeal proposal seeks to relocate the staircase to a different position. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that it relates to development that is partly retrospective and partly proposed.

The appellant refers to an application for a Certificate of [name] or Development relating to the use of the roof terrace. At the time of reaching my decision, I have not been made aware that this application has been determined. It has therefore not been determinative in my consideration of the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to privacy and noise; and • the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling within a row of residential properties. A roof terrace has been constructed at the front of the dwelling and is currently accessed via an external spiral staircase. The proposal seeks to relocate the staircase from the side closest to 7 [site address] (No. 7) to the side closest to 5 [site address] (No. 5).

Relocating the staircase would improve the level of privacy experienced by the occupiers of No. 7, and the proposed planters would provide some visual screening from people seated on the terrace. However, a person standing on the terrace would still be able to look towards the side-facing windows of No. 7, as the proposed screening would not be sufficient to prevent such views. The resulting relationship would allow close-range and sustained observation of those windows, giving rise to a materially harmful degree of overlooking.

The appellant has provided photographs showing views into No. 7 from the public highway and from the front door of the appeal property. [name] have taken this evidence into account, views from the road are oblique and do not allow the same level of overlooking as would occur from the elevated terrace. Views from the front door would be fleeting, arising only when entering or leaving the property. By contrast, the terrace provides a platform from which prolonged overlooking could occur. Accordingly, the appellant’s photographic evidence does not alter my findings.

The appellant states that the terrace is used only occasionally. However, the frequency of use does not alter the fact that when the terrace is used, harmful overlooking of No. 7 would occur. The impact arises from the nature of the relationship between the terrace and the neighbouring windows, not from the number of occasions on which the terrace is accessed.

The appellant also refers to the general pattern of overlooking within Salcombe. [name] recognise that properties in the town are often in close proximity, the existence of other overlooking does not justify additional harm. Each proposal must be assessed on its own merits, and in this case the terrace would introduce a materially harmful relationship with No. 7.

With regard to No. 5, any views from people using the relocated staircase would be confined to the front garden, which is already subject to a high degree of visibility from the street. The arrangement of windows at No. 5 and the relative positioning of the terrace would prevent direct or intrusive overlooking of habitable rooms. I therefore find no material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 5.

In terms of noise, the use of the terrace and the relocated staircase would not materially alter the existing pattern of activity or introduce noise levels beyond those typically associated with residential occupation. Consequently, the development would not result in material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of either No. 5 or No. 7, in respect of noise.

For these reasons, although I have found the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 5 to be acceptable, the development causes unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 7, in respect of privacy. Consequently, it conflicts with Policy DEV1 of the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014 – 2034 (JLP), insofar as it seeks to ensure that development provides for satisfactory living conditions and protects the privacy of existing residents.

The appeal site lies within a residential street characterised by a coherent suburban form, where dwellings share a broadly consistent building line, modest plot widths, and a rhythm of spacing that contributes to a settled streetscape. Although architectural detailing varies, the prevailing character is one of restrained scale and simple elevational treatment.

The roof terrace is already in place and is experienced within this established context. Whilst there are no comparable elevated terraces on the street, the structure is contained within the existing building envelope and does not materially alter the overall height or massing of the dwelling. When viewed from the public realm, it reads as a modest intervention rather than a feature that disrupts the established pattern of development.

Planters positioned on and over the balustrade provide a degree of visual softening and help to integrate the terrace into the appearance of the dwelling. Even allowing for seasonal variation, the planting reduces the perceived starkness of the balustrade and introduces a verdant element that contributes positively to the street scene.

Taking into account the modest scale of the terrace, its contained position within the existing built form and the contribution of the balustrade planting, the development sits comfortably within the streetscape. It does not undermine the character or appearance of the area.

For these reasons, the development does not cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it complies with Policy DEV20 of the JLP, insofar as it requires development to be well designed and to respond positively to its context. It also complies with Policy SALC B1 of the Salcombe Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2034, which seeks to ensure that extensions integrate sensitively with their setting.

I have considered all other matters raised, including the appellant’s argument regarding efficient land use. However, the other matters that have been raised do not outweigh the harm identified to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 7.

Additionally, the appellant refers to previous discussions with neighbours and to unrelated disputes. However, private agreements or personal circumstances are not material planning considerations and have not influenced my decision.

For the reasons given above, the development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.