Rear two storey extension and front porch and new car port and new driveway to front
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Character & Appearance
Extensions
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 10 March 2020
by M Bale BA (Hons) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 6 April 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/W1145/D/19/3239729
Little Meadows, Road from The Square to Battledown Cross, Shebbear,
EX21 5SG
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mrs Linda Chapman against the decision of Torridge District
Council.
• The application Ref 1/0503/2019/FUL, dated 19 May 2019, was refused by notice dated
5 August 2019.
• The development proposed is a rear two storey extension and front porch and new car
port and new driveway to front.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear two storey
extension and front porch and new car port and new driveway to front at Little
Meadows, Road from The Square to Battledown Cross, Shebbear, EX21 5SG in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 1/0503/2019/FUL, dated 19
May 2019, subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years
from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: EMA/2019/0031/0001;
EMA/2019/0031/0002; EMA/2019/0031/0003; EMA/2019/0031/0004;
EMA/2019/0031/0005; EMA/2019/0031/0006; EMA/2019/0031/0007;
EMA/2019/0031/0008; EMA/2019/0031/0009; EMA/2019/0031/0010;
EMA/2019/0031/0011; EMA/2019/0031/0012; EMA/2019/0031/0013;
EMA/2019/0031/0014.
3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of
the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing
building.
Application for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mrs Linda Chapman against Torridge
District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Procedural matters
3. The description of the development on the application form indicates that some
elements of the proposal may be permitted development. Whether or not that
is the case, I have considered the entirety of the proposal before me, as
Appeal Decision APP/W1145/D/19/3239729
2
detailed on the plans. Accordingly, I have omitted the words ‘permitted
development’ from the description in my heading and formal decision.
4. The Council’s second reason for refusal refers to neighbouring properties at
‘Summer Heights’. However, these are described in the officer’s report as
‘Sunset Heights’, which accords with the submitted location plan and signage
on the ground.
Main Issues
5. The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the area and
the effect on the living conditions of adjoining properties with regard to outlook
and privacy.
Reasons
Character and appearance
6. The immediately surrounding area has a varied character with a mix of building
styles. There are a large number of modest single-storey dwellings similar to
the appeal building, but the adjoining Arden House and a cluster of dwellings at
Sunset Heights are two-storey.
7. The site slopes away from the road such that there is a significant ‘under build’
at the rear, where the internal floor is raised up from the garden level. The
proposal would utilise the change in level to provide a two-storey extension
without exceeding the overall height of the existing dwelling. Thus, I find that
the proposal does not ignore the gradient of the land, but rather provides an
extension that is appropriate and sympathetic to its setting and context in
terms of scale, height, relationship to the host building and its surroundings.
8. The two-storey rear extension would be large and would result in a significant
increase in floorspace. I note that the Parish Council consider that the proposal
would be a little too large for the site. However, the dwelling would still
present a single storey front elevation to the street. Whilst there may be some
views of the rear extension from the road, the presence of surrounding
buildings means that it would not be particularly prominent or dominate the
overall appearance of the area. There would, therefore, be no demonstrable
harm to the street scene, or overall character and appearance of the area.
9. Accordingly, with regard to the above, I find that there would be no conflict
with the 14 design principles outlined in Policy DM04 of the North Devon and
Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 (LP), LP Policy 25 relating to residential
extensions, or those parts of the National Planning Policy Framework that seek
to secure good design.
Living conditions
10. Arden House sits broadly alongside the existing dwelling on a similar
orientation. No.1 Sunset Heights is located to the other side, aligned at an
approximate right angle, such that its garden is alongside the site’s side
boundary and its rear windows face across the garden. No.2 Sunset Heights
sits beyond No.1, facing towards the rear elevation of Little Meadows, but the
dwelling and its garden are off-set from the appeal site, to the side of Little
Meadows’ garden.
Appeal Decision APP/W1145/D/19/3239729
3
11. The proposed two-storey extension would protrude significantly to the rear. It
would be clearly visible from the rear windows of No.1 and the upper floor
windows of No.2. However, given the generally open nature of the existing
rear garden environment, which also borders open countryside, it would not
harm the outlook from these properties nor those of Arden House.
12. The proposed Juliet balcony in the gable end would introduce windows at a
higher level to those in the existing dwelling. However, the design of the
balcony would mean that the occupiers of Little Meadows would be stood within
the building when looking out of that window. Accordingly, whilst the ground
level may increase the ability to look down onto neighbouring land, the relative
position of windows and garden spaces in the adjoining properties means that a
significant loss of privacy would not result from the proposal.
13. I, therefore, find that there would be no harm to the living conditions of
neighbouring residents. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with those
aspects of LP Policies DM01 and DM25 that seek to prevent significant adverse
impacts on the amenity of the occupants of neighbouring properties.
Conclusion
14. With regard to the above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. A
plans condition is required in the interests of certainty and a condition requiring
external materials to match the existing, as proposed on the application form,
is necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area.
M Bale
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 10 March 2020
by M Bale BA (Hons) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 6 April 2020
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/W1145/D/19/3239729
Little Meadows, Road from The Square to Battledown Cross, Shebbear,
EX21 5SG
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mrs Linda Chapman for a full award of costs against Torridge
District Council.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a rear two storey
extension and front porch and new car port and new driveway to front.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying
for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. The appellant requested pre-application advice from the Council, hoping to
provide greater certainty and ensure that an acceptable application was made.
Pre-application discussions are encouraged by the National Planning Policy
Framework in order to promote effective and efficient decision making. My
attention has been drawn to another Costs Decision1 where costs were awarded
after a local planning authority did not follow pre-application advice, but I do
not have the benefit of full details of that case on which to draw any particular
comparison.
4. In this case, the appellant’s pre-application request described the proposal in
some detail and the response received from the Council suggests that the
officer understood that it would be for a two-storey extension. The advice
given did not discourage the submission of an application but did note that no
detailed elevation drawings had been provided and that a site visit was
required. Thus, whilst the appellant may remain unhappy with the pre-
application service received, and the Council’s response to a complaint in that
regard, the pre-application advice clearly sets out a need for some subsequent,
more detailed assessment.
5. In determining the application, the Council refused permission for two reasons
based upon alleged conflicts with the development plan. The relevant issues,
and consideration of associated policies, involved the exercise of planning
1 APP/J9497/D/17/3185212
Costs Decision APP/W1145/D/19/3239729
2
judgement. The alleged harms are clearly stated on the decision notice, with
specific reference to a number of properties. The Council’s conclusion that
harm would arise would reasonably have resulted in a corresponding conflict
with the stated policies.
6. The reasons for refusal are further supported by the officer’s report which
provides greater context. Whilst the appellant points to factual errors in the
report, including in the stated dimensions of the proposal, find nothing so
significant as to suggest that the Council’s officers did not understand the
proposal before them, or that a different decision would have resulted.
7. Much of the appellant’s costs application relates to the planning merits of the
case, which are the subject of my main appeal decision. I have not agreed
with the Council’s decision, and my finding that no harm would arise leads to a
conclusion that there would be no conflict with the development plan.
However, although the Council may not have any locally adopted design
standards and may not have provided any positive suggestions to overcome
their concerns, that is not to say that they were manifestly unreasonable in
exercising the judgement that they did.
8. I have been directed to a potential fallback position whereby an extension
could be constructed under permitted development rights. However, whether
or not such an option is available to the appellant, such would appear to have
resulted in a lower building. Accordingly, it would likely have been a
substantially different scheme to that placed before the Council, and me.
9. I, therefore, find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or
wasted expense in the appeal process, as described in the Planning Practice
Guidance, has not been demonstrated.
M Bale
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.