Appeal 6000645

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for side extension over garage and single storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 0842/25/HHO, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 458_001 Rev 2, 458_005 Rev 1, 458_006 Rev 2, 458_007 Rev 1 and 458_008 Rev 1.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the drainage works have been completed in accordance with the approved plans. The development shall then be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved plans thereafter.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, having regard to outlook.

The appeal property occupies a corner plot at the end of [address], with its side elevation facing the rear of dwellings in [address]. Those dwellings sit at a lower ground level, and the Council considers that the combination of this level difference and a separation distance of around ten metres would result in an unacceptable overbearing impact. I have taken these factors into account in assessing the effect of the proposal on neighbouring living conditions.

The existing single-storey garage already forms a substantial built edge at this interface. The proposal would introduce a first-floor element above this structure, but the footprint would remain unchanged, and the extension would not project any closer to the neighbouring dwellings. The relationship between the properties would therefore continue to be defined by the established building line. The rear extension, which replaces an existing conservatory, would be modest in scale and would not materially affect neighbouring outlook. It is not a matter of dispute between the parties.

The Council refers to guidance in the Joint Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which suggests a 12-metre separation between a blank wall and a habitable room window, with increased distances where level differences exist. However, the SPD is guidance rather than a prescriptive standard, and it must be applied with regard to the specific context of the site. In this case, the extension would occupy only a modest width above the existing garage, and the roof form incorporates a lowered eaves line and a sloping profile that reduces the perceived mass when viewed from [address]. Although the ridge of the extension would sit just below that of the host dwelling, this relationship is typical of a subordinate side addition and does not, in itself, create an overbearing effect.

The neighbouring dwellings benefit from wide rear gardens, and the appeal property occupies only a limited part of their overall outlook. Although the appeal property sits at a higher level, the unchanged footprint, limited width of the extension and its sloping roof design ensure that the additional height would not materially increase the perceived bulk of the building. The existing two-storey dwelling already establishes a strong built presence, and the added volume would read as part of its established form rather than as a new intrusive feature.

Whilst the extension would be visible from neighbouring dwellings, visibility alone does not amount to harm. With its modest scale and moderated roof form, it would not appear unduly dominant or oppressive when viewed from the neighbouring properties, and those properties would retain open rear gardens and wider views of the residential area. I therefore find no materially harmful loss of outlook.

For these reasons, the proposed development would not cause material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, having regard to outlook. Consequently, the proposal complies with Policy DEV1 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014 – 2034, which requires, in part, all development to safeguard people’s health and amenity by preventing schemes that would cause harmful effects such as overbearing impacts.

The standard time-limit condition and a condition listing the approved plans are necessary for the purposes of clarity.

The Council proposes a condition requiring the development to accord with the drainage details shown on the plans. This is necessary and reasonable to ensure surface water runoff does not adversely affect the public highway or neighbouring properties. I have therefore included the condition, with minor changes to the wording in the interests of precision.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed. [name]