Appeal 6005272

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of the appeal proposal from the decision notice and the appeal form, as I consider this better reflects the proposed development before me.

Whilst the appeal proposal would result in a number of alterations to the appeal property (No. 74), it is evident from the decision notice and the comments from other parties that the key areas of concern relate to the proposed rear extension. As a result, it is on this element of the proposal that my considerations primarily focus.

The main issues are the effects of the appeal proposal, having particular regard to the proposed two storey rear extension, on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

No. 74 is located towards the lower end of [address] at a point whereby the predominance of single storey bungalows at the upper end have transitioned into more typically two storey form. No. 74 is one such property, and unlike the majority of other dwellings along [address] is detached, and as a result is set within slightly larger grounds to its neighbours and is a property of a significant form.

During my site visit I could see angled views of the side profiles of No.[address], I could also see the rear elevation of No.74 from the north-east on [address], which runs perpendicular to [address]. The rear elevation would also be observed from a number of the properties in the surrounding area and other more distant vantage points to the north.

The proposal seeks to extend across the entirety of the existing two storey component of the rear elevation of No.74. This would be broadly split into two parts, one part being a flat roofed section to the eastern side of the elevation, with the other being a more substantial deeper addition that would be in the form of a gabled end to the western side.

During my site visit, it was evident to me that a characteristic of some of the two storey dwellings within the immediate area to the appeal property includes two storey wings running to the rear elevations lining up flush with the primary side components of these properties. This was evident in particular when looking up towards No. [address] from [address]. Admittedly, these views were in the context of other building form in the foreground, but nonetheless, this leads me to a view that the general principle of the continuation of the building line of the side profile of No.74 in a two storey form would not represent an unusual feature in the surrounding context.

It was also evident to me that a number of these rear wings presented in a gabled form which stepped down from the ridgeline of the main component of the host property, these existing features are therefore similar to what is indicated on the western component of the appeal proposal.

With all of that said, the rear elevation of No.74 is particularly prominent and is elevated above the vantage points from [address] to the north-east. [name] do not have any particular concerns with a number of the components of the proposed works to the rear elevation or the wider elements of the appeal proposal, based upon what I observed above, I am not comfortable with the manner in which the proposed eastern elevation would present when perceived from the north-east.

From this direction, I find that the depth and overall height, which would exceed the existing eaves level, of the proposed extension, alongside the flank nature of the footprint of the proposal to the existing dwelling, would result in a somewhat domineering building mass when viewed from the north-east, due to the visibility and elevated positioning of No.74. I am also not convinced that the elongated horizontal opening proposed at the first floor level on the east elevation would represent an acceptable design response.

A number of other examples of extensions and alterations have been presented to me by the appellant, some of which I observed during my site visit. [name] have taken account of these examples in my assessment, I do not know the full circumstances behind each of these cases, but nonetheless, other developments that are not sympathetic or in keeping are not a reason to support development that would similarly appear out of place. In any case, I am required to judge each proposal on its own individual planning merits.

I also acknowledge that it may also be possible to undertake a rear extension to No.74 under permitted development rights, but such works would not be to same depth or height as the proposal before me. Therefore, the potential for a fallback alternative (which I discuss in greater detail later in my decision), and the other examples presented to me, do not lead me to reach differing conclusions on the character and appearance effects of the proposal before me.

Overall, whilst I accept there is capacity to extend to the rear of No.74 in character and appearance terms and I am satisfied with a number of the components of the proposals before me, I have particular concerns with the manner in which the eastern elevation of the proposal would present when viewed from [address] to the north-east.

Therefore, on this basis I find that the appeal proposal would conflict with Policies DE1 and DE5 of the Torbay Local Plan 2012-2030 (the TLP), Policy PNP1(c) of the Paignton Neighbourhood Plan 2012- 2030 (the PNP) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), which amongst other matters, seek well-designed development that would not dominate the original property or the street scene and respects the site and its surroundings through its scale, design, height, density, layout, siting, character and appearance.

[address] slopes down from west to east, whereby the neighbouring properties are positioned at a higher (No.76 to the west) or lower (No. 72 to the east) level to No.74.The property is also positioned in relatively spacious grounds whereby there is some degree of physical separation of the primary form of the property with its boundaries to either side.

During my site visit it was evident to me that due to the higher ground level of No.76, the separation distances involved and the existing boundary enclosures, the proposal before me would not unduly prejudice the living conditions of existing or future occupiers of this property, through matters such as loss of light, overbearing implications, or loss of privacy.

No.72 in the opposite direction is located at a lower ground level to No.74. During my site visit, I could look into the rear garden and windows to the rear of this property from the garden area, the existing sun room on the rear and the upper floor windows serving the north-eastern first floor room of No.74. Bearing in mind this context, the siting of the development, the proposed positioning of openings, the angles of view and the ability to control the glazing detail and method of openings to windows on the proposed development via planning conditions where necessary, I am satisfied that the appeal proposal would not result in any significant increase in loss of privacy to No. 72.

Nonetheless, the appeal proposal would result in a two storey elevation as a continuation of the existing two storey component of No.74 positioned at an elevated level to the western side of No.72.

[name] accept that the proposed extension would be set back from the boundary between No.72 it would nonetheless appear as a significant building mass when perceived from the closest windows at No.72 and the rear section of No. 72’s garden near to the siting of the proposed extension.

In my view, the overall scale of the proposal and its proximity to No. 72 as a result of the ground levels involved, would result in an oppressive and overbearing effect, resulting in a sense of enclosure to the above sections of No. 72’s garden and internal space, this would be to the detriment of the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of this property.

Having regard to the potential for overshadowing as a result of the proposal, the appellant has presented a Sunlight and [name] through their appeal submissions which, amongst other matters, sets out that the proposal would result in some increase in shade and loss of light to windows and the rear garden of no. 72 adjacent to the proposed extension, in the evening and the summer months. The appellant has drawn analysis with the appeal proposals with what could potentially be undertaken through permitted development rights, but nonetheless acknowledges an additional impact beyond what maybe possible.

For the permitted development rights fallback option to be afforded significant weight I must be satisfied that there is a realistic possibility of it being implemented in the event that this appeal is dismissed. However, I have not been provided with a degree of certainty that such works could be undertaken through permitted development rights, such as through the provision of a lawful development certificate. Without this, I can not give these arguments any significant weight in reaching my decision.

Even so, as explained above, the effects of the proposed extension on loss of light and overshadowing to No. 72 would exacerbate the effects of what could potentially be possible through permitted development rights. [name] am required to determine the proposal before me, I am not satisfied that I could reach a conclusion that the effects would be acceptable on the living conditions of No. 72 in this regard. Thus, I consider that the appeal proposal would be detrimental to the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of No.72 with regard to loss of light and overshadowing.

As a final point on this matter, reference has also been made to the potential for loss of privacy and other living conditions effects to other properties in the area, however due to the separation distances involved and the angles of potential sight, I am satisfied that the resultant effects would be acceptable on other properties.

Accordingly, the proposed two-storey rear extension would result in harm to the living conditions of No. 72 with specific regard to an overbearing impact, loss of light and overshadowing. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to Policies DE3 and DE5 of the TLP, Policy PNP1(c) of the PNP and Section 12 of the Framework, which amongst other matters, seek a high standard of amenity for existing and future users

A number of other matters have been raised through the appeal documents, and whilst I have taken these into account in reaching my decision, none of the other matters raised alter or outweigh my conclusions.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal proposal would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address].

As a result of these negative effects, the proposal is in my view unacceptable, and contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that would justify a decision contrary to the provisions of the development plan, in this case.

For all of the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.