Appeal 6002011

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 1470/25/VAR for the erection of 2 storey dwelling house containing residential annexe (Retrospective) at [address], 39B [site address] , [site address] , Devon [postcode] , granted on 15 July 2025 by South Hams District Council, is varied by deleting condition 8 and substituting it with the following condition:

The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the boundary treatment to the south elevation has been installed in accordance with the details shown on drawing number WP.01.24.05 [name] and set out in the supporting information with regard to its solid form and finish. The boundary treatment shall be retained as such thereafter in perpetuity.

The address above is taken from the planning application form; it describes the site address more clearly now the dwelling is under construction.

I observed at my site visit that a wall has been constructed along part of the southern boundary of the site. However, I cannot be certain the wall, as built, accurately reflects the position or height of the wall, including finished ground levels, shown on the submitted drawings. In these circumstances, for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted drawings and accompanying supporting information relating to the design and form of the wall.

Planning permission for the erection of the dwelling1 includes a condition to require details of the boundary treatment to the southern elevation to be submitted, to ensure sufficient screening is provided to the neighbouring dwelling, Lothlorien (dwelling to the south). In allowing the earlier appeal for the erection of a dwelling at the site2, the Inspector considered that, to protect the living conditions of surrounding residents, it was appropriate to require details of the treatment of the southern elevation, to ensure sufficient screening is provided to the neighbouring dwelling, Lothlorien.

In determining the subsequent application to vary the permission, the Council considered that the information submitted pursuant to the condition was not sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed boundary treatment would, in practice, deliver the required screening between the properties. Thus, the request to amend the condition to require only compliance with the details was refused and the condition requiring the submission of details of boundary treatment was reimposed. The appellant contends that the details of the boundary treatment submitted as part of the application satisfy the requirements of the condition. Consequently, it is argued that the condition is not necessary and it should be removed in its entirety or replaced with a modified version to require compliance with the submitted details.

Considering the above, the main issue is therefore whether the condition is reasonable or necessary in the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of Lothlorien, with specific regard to privacy.

The appeal site comprises an L shaped plot fronting the highway at [site address] . The rear garden of the new dwelling, which was under construction at the time of my visit, includes a dogleg section of the site, which adjoins the boundary of the dwelling to the rear, known as Lothlorien. The ground levels slope away from the rear of the new dwelling towards the rear boundary of the site and continue to decrease towards the rear elevation of Lothlorien, which is at a lower ground level than the appeal site.

The submitted site plan3 shows a 1.8m high boundary wall to the southern boundary of the site coterminous with the boundary to Lothlorien, with a return set in a short distance from the side boundaries of the site. It includes a section which shows the ground levels of the appeal site and the rear garden of Lothlorien, together with privacy sight lines. In addition, despite the absence of elevational drawings of the wall, to show its design and form, the appellant’s submissions confirm that the proposed block wall would be a solid structure, with a render finish, to match the host dwelling. The details therefore provide certainty regarding the precise form of the boundary treatment for which approval is sought.

In combination, these details clearly demonstrate that a wall, in the position shown and of the height and solid construction proposed, would provide sufficient screening to prevent any direct overlooking of the adjoining property to the rear, including its garden, from the appeal site, having regard to the difference in levels. 1 [name] 1470/25/VAR 2 Appeal Ref: APP/K1128/W/24/3346226 3 [name]. WP.01.24.05B - Proposed site plan and West elevation showing relationship with Lothlorien to the [name], the submitted details would satisfy the requirements of the condition, which seeks to secure appropriate screening between the appeal property and Lothlorien.

As such, the boundary treatment, as shown on the submitted proposed site plan, the development would accord with the aims of Policy DEV1 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-2034, adopted March 2019 which require development proposals to safeguard the amenity of local communities by, among other things, ensuring that new development provides for satisfactory privacy for both new and existing residents.

I therefore conclude that, having regard to the information before me pertaining to the proposed boundary treatment, the disputed condition, in so far as it requires the submission of details, is not reasonable or necessary in the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of Lothlorien. However, the part of the condition that requires compliance with the details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling is necessary, to ensure the boundary treatment is implemented in accordance with the details submitted, to prevent any overlooking of Lothlorien. I will therefore replace the condition subject to the appeal with one that requires compliance with the submitted details. In addition, it is necessary to require the agreed boundary treatment to be retained as such in perpetuity, in the continued interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of Lothlorien.

Concern is expressed by interested parties regarding the structural integrity and safety of the wall which has been constructed at the site, given its ostensible function as a retaining structure. My attention is drawn to the report on behalf of the occupiers of Lothlorien4, which indicates that, in its current state the wall is considered unstable. Nonetheless, issues regarding compliance with relevant regulations, including adequate drainage provision in relation to the wall that has been constructed, is beyond the scope of my considerations and therefore a matter for the parties to resolve outside of the appeal.

Moreover, the alleged lack of consultation with the adjoining landowner at Lothlorien regarding the structure and finish of the wall is a civil matter that falls outside of the planning regime.

[name] have concluded that the condition is only reasonable and necessary in so far as it requires compliance with the agreed details prior to the first occupation, I will replace the condition subject to the appeal with one that requires the implementation of the boundary treatment in accordance with the submitted details. In addition, for the reasons set out above, it is necessary to require the agreed boundary treatment is retained as such in perpetuity.

[name] acknowledge the alternative condition wording suggested by the appellant, this would fail to satisfy the tests set out in the Planning Practice Guidance in terms of being precise. 4 Report by HB Surveying Limited dated 23 September 2023

For the foregoing reasons the appeal should be allowed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition and imposing a new condition.