Appeal 6002886

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing single-storey rear extension and construction of two-storey rear extension at [site address] , Devon [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1258/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The proposal is described differently on the planning application form but the appellant has confirmed that the description of development in the banner heading above is correct. The plans and Materials Schedule supplied by the Council are Revisions 01-WIP indicating a rendered finish to the new extension. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Demolition of the former extension took place and construction commenced before the status of No 118 as a locally listed building (non-designated heritage asset) was known. Subsequently the application which is the subject of this appeal was submitted.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and the effect on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties taking particular account of light, outlook and privacy.

The appeal site is in the Heavitree Conservation Area (the CA) and I am required to pay special attention to the desirability of “preserving or enhancing the character or appearance” of a conservation area1. 1 Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

The CA special characteristics include its historic street pattern and traditional building character. [address] is the main road within the CA and a main arterial route for the City of Exeter. There are many Listed Buildings and locally listed buildings in the CA including significant ones along [address]. Key features include external materials of stone, cob, brick, slate and pastel shades of painted render; vertically proportioned windows with recessed reveals; and details such as quoins, canopies and moulded surrounds. Challenges include the gradual erosion of original and traditional features through unsympathetic replacement and the many buildings in need of repairs.

As a locally listed historic building No 118 is a non-designated heritage asset. It is thought to date from around the 1750s but little of the original structure remains. Although not statutorily listed, it has some historic significance, mainly from its public-facing front elevation being part of the historic street frontage. The property is in need of repair.

The former extension is unlikely to have been constructed as part of the original building. Its demolition has not harmed the CA or the non-designated heritage asset.

The new extension would be on more or less the same footprint as the former single storey extension. In this respect the proposal would be in keeping with the grain of development and the urban character requirement of Saved Policy DG1 of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 1995-2011 (the LP). Moreover, in not projecting beyond the existing footprint or above the eaves, in my judgement, the new extension would not significantly conflict with General Principle 5 of the [name]: Design of Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in requiring extensions to be subservient to the original house.

The first floor would have a flat roof at eaves level. This would not interrupt the main roof form and would be set well behind the public-facing front elevation. The roofscape of this part of [address] is very mixed with a variety of heights and roof forms though I acknowledge that first floor flat roofs are not common.

The only view of the flat roof from the historic [address] frontage would be along the path between the appeal building and No 120 in the vicinity of [address] opposite. As the path is very narrow the views of the extension would be very restricted by existing walls. Accordingly the proposal would not appear prominent and would not have a harmful effect on the historic street frontage.

The new extension would be visible from the modern developments on [address] and [address] which are not in the CA. The rear elevations of [address] properties that can be seen from these vantage points are very varied and are of mixed, often unprepossessing, character and appearance. The former extension had unsympathetic fenestration and mix of roof forms. In my judgement the new extension would have the benefit of improving fenestration and would not be significantly out of character with adjoining rear elevations.

However, the proposed flat roof would not match that of the main roof, and would be harmful to the significance of the locally listed building and the CA. In not matching the main roof form the proposed flat roof would also conflict with the requirement of Principle 6 of the SPD.

However, for the reasons set out above, the harm to the significance of the CA as a whole and to the non-designated heritage asset, would be minor and less than substantial. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

There would be public benefits arising from the renovation and bringing back into use of a locally listed building in the CA especially as many buildings in the CA require repair. The frontage of No 118 has unsympathetic UPVC trims, a poor-quality front door, cracked and patched render and a crude canopy. The appellant states that an integral part of the proposal is the enhancement of this frontage. Works described in the application documents include reinstatement of missing and eroded quoins; recessed windows of Georgian proportions to replicate traditional timber joinery proportions, profiles, and glazing patterns; re-rendering of the front elevation in lime-based render; lead-capped moulded canopy to match adjoining properties; and heritage style front door. Such enhancements would substantially improve the appearance of the locally listed building, and of the historic street frontage, which is such a key characteristic of the CA.

For the above reasons I conclude that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh the minor harm to the character and appearance of the CA and the significance of the locally listed heritage asset. I therefore find no significant conflict with those parts of [name] C1, C3, DG1 or DG4 of the LP; Objectives 8 and 9 and Policy CP17 of the Exeter City Council Core Strategy 2012; the SPD; or those principles of the Framework that seek good design that protects the character and appearance of the area; conserves and enhances the CA; and protects heritage assets.

The main rear walls of Nos 118 and [address] are on roughly the same building line. The new extension would project about 3m from the existing two storey rear elevation, about the same distance as the single storey extension at No 116. Accordingly there would be no unacceptable loss of outlook from any ground floor windows, or the garden of No 116, and its patio door windows would not be over shadowed. Moreover there is a raised roof light that provides further light into the ground floor accommodation at No 116. The first floor window closest to the new extension would fall within the 45 degree guidelines but this serves a stairs/landing which is not a habitable room.

The house at No [address] is set back behind the appeal building. The new extension would not project beyond its rear wall so there would be no loss of outlook or over shadowing of windows or the garden of that property. There are no openings in the side wall of No 120 that would be affected. There would be an oblique view of the rear garden of No 120 from the proposed first floor bedroom windows. Such a relationship between residential properties is not unusual in urban areas and would not be sufficient reason for with holding planning permission.

The plans show a new side door to the kitchen and a small ground floor window serving a WC in the side wall of the new extension. These directly adjoin a narrow path which appears to end at a gate to the rear garden of No 120. There are no windows in the side wall of No 120 so there would be no overlooking or loss of privacy inside that property. In such circumstances there is no planning policy justification for refusing a planning application on the grounds that a residential door exits onto a path or that a small ground floor window faces it.

For the reasons set out above I conclude the proposal would not have such a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of adjoining properties so as to justify withholding planning permission. I find no conflict with those parts of Saved Policy DG4 of the LP, or those principles of the Framework which seek to ensure a high standard of amenity and which allows residents to feel at ease within their homes and gardens.

There is a dispute over land ownership in relation to the path between Nos 118 and 120. I acknowledge the concerns raised in this respect, including about drainage and that the plans show the new extension would be marginally wider on this side, but rights over land are private matters to be resolved between the relevant owners. Where land is not owned by an applicant notice should be served on the owner under the planning Regulations. However, this is to ensure that any relevant owner is aware of the application, which is clearly the case here. Accordingly, this does not affect the outcome of this appeal.

Reference has been made to the Planning Portal guidance regarding openings seven metres from boundaries and that windows or glazing should not be directly on planning boundaries. This, however, relates to permitted development rights2 under which some residential extensions are permitted without the need for express planning permission but can follow a simplified planning process. This appeal relates to an application for full planning permission so matters relating to permitted development are not directly relevant.

As development has commenced the standard condition specifying the time limits for commencement is not appropriate. Compliance with the approved plans and documents is necessary to provide certainty and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. As indicated in the Appeal Statement full details of materials for external surfaces should be submitted for approval in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

In the interests of avoiding congestion on the highway and protecting living conditions of residents construction should be carried out in accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan. Compliance with the [name] is necessary in the interests of wildlife.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos and documents: • 378.A.03 Site/Roof Plan • 378.A.06 Rev 01-[name] (existing and proposed) • 378.A.07 Rev 01-WIP Building Elevations (existing and proposed) • 378.A.08 [name] • 378.A.17 [name] • 378.A.18 [name] • Heritage Statement • A.09-WIP Materials Schedule • [name] V1, 5 November 2025 • Design and [name] • 378.A.09 Guidance Rules • Construction Environmental Management Plan

No further development shall take place until details/samples of the materials, including render composition, colour, and finish, to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted for the approval in writing of the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples. End of Schedule