Appeal 6001230

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form states the change of use took place in 2004. I saw during my site visit that the basement was in use as a dwelling. This appears to accord with the plans before me. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place, as did the Council. While retrospective, my assessment of the proposal is based on the plans before the Council at the time of the planning application.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for existing and future occupiers, with particular regard to privacy.

The basement flat has windows facing both the front and rear of the property. The rear windows overlook the garden; however, this garden is not, and is not proposed to be, for the use of the basement flat. At the front, the windows look onto the parking area, but as they are partially below ground level, they offer limited visibility both into and out of the flat.

The windows overlooking the garden serve both the main living area and a bedroom. Due to the site’s topography, the external ground level is approximately level with the windowsills of these rooms. As a result, there are unobstructed views from these windows directly into the garden.

Directly outside these windows is a patio area. From both the patio and the wider garden, there are direct views into the rooms they serve, including the principal living spaces of the basement flat. This results in users of the garden being able to look directly into these rooms, leading to significant privacy intrusion. Although the windows are positioned below the eye level of a standing adult, anyone seated on the patio would have a clear view inside, as would children using the garden. While blinds or curtains could be used, reliance on such measures would not provide a satisfactory or acceptable standard of living for future occupiers.

With regard to views from the basement flat into the garden, I acknowledge that there would be some loss of privacy in the area immediately adjacent to the windows. However, the garden is sufficiently large to provide more private areas further away from the building. I also recognise that the garden is already overlooked to some extent by neighbouring properties, which naturally limits the overall level of privacy available within this space.

While it may be possible to introduce a hedge or fence to improve privacy, no drawings or details have been provided to demonstrate the proposed height, position, or form of such boundary treatment. Any screening would need to be carefully located to ensure that it does not unduly restrict the outlook from the basement flat, thereby maintaining an acceptable standard of amenity for future occupiers.

The basement may have previously been used as staff accommodation for the house, however, given the interrelationship between the uses I do not find this a comparable situation. Even if the basement has been used independently for some time there is no evidence that this has been a lawful use and as such, I give this limited weight.

Overall, I conclude that although the change of use would result in some reduction in privacy for the occupiers of the dwelling, this impact is not, in itself, so significant as to cause unacceptable harm to their living conditions. However, the ability for users of the patio and garden to look directly into the windows of the basement flat, particularly the principal living spaces, would lead to a serious loss of privacy for future occupiers. This would amount to material harm to their living environment.

Accordingly, the development would conflict with Policy DEV1 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan, which seeks, among other aims, to safeguard the amenities of both existing and future residents, including in respect of privacy.

The building in which the appeal is located is [name] listed and also within the Okehampton Conservation Area, as a result I have been mindful of my statutory duties under Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The appeal property forms part of a listed building known as 26 to 38 [name]. The significance of this building stems from its age and architectural detailing. The change of use proposed does not result in any internal or external alterations. As a result, in this instance, I find that there would be a neutral effect on the significance of the listed building. The Council did not raise any concerns in this regard either. Furthermore, for the same reasons the character or appearance of the conservation area would be preserved.

I note that the Parish Council have made representations in respect of the removal of a staircase, however, there is no information in the evidence before me that such a removal has taken place.

In favour of the proposal, the development would deliver a new dwelling that makes more efficient use of the site and is well located with convenient access to local services and public transport. The scheme would also contribute positively to the housing mix in the area. Additional benefits include increased Council Tax revenue and the economic uplift associated with future occupants’ spending in the local community.

The Council can currently demonstrate only a 2.53-year supply of housing, meaning that paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged. In these circumstances, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole.

Having considered all relevant matters, I conclude that, although the proposal would deliver a single additional dwelling, the identified harm to the living conditions of future occupiers would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. As such, the Framework does not indicate a decision in favour of the development. The proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and no material considerations justify determining the appeal otherwise.

Therefore, for the reasons given the appeal should be dismissed.