Appeal 3284762
Public case and site metadata stored from the official casework database, including fields that were empty in the source release.
A clearer next step
See how Inspectors approached issues like yours
Bring your planning decision into a private workspace. We separate the disputed points, then match them with source-located Inspector reasoning from similar appeals.
- See which issues the decision appears to turn on
- Compare the facts and open the full appeal records
One private comparison
How the refusal review worksOne-off service · No subscription
Similar appeals are evidence to inspect, not a prediction of your outcome.
Official decision document
The decision, section by section
8 sections
Read the development description and the Inspector’s text from the official decision PDF in source order. Source headings are retained where available. Personal and contact details are removed by an automated privacy filter; this is source material, not Rules for You analysis.
Section 01
Development description
the addition of dormer roof and one room in roof space.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the addition of dormer roof and one room in roof space at [address], Cullompton [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/00829/HOUSE, dated 26 April 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following
Section 03
condition
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than [3] years from the date of this decision.
Section 04
[name]
The main issues are the effect on: • The character and appearance of the terrace of which the appeal property forms part and that of the local area; and • The living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers with reference to privacy.
Section 05
Character and Appearance
The appeal property is a [address] artisan cottage that forms part of a short gable ended terrace of 4 cottages, which appear to be of some age, but that have undergone significant alteration, although not extension. The terrace is orientated so that the cottages turn their backs to the street and the front entrances to the cottages are in the elevation of the terrace that faces away from the street. The entrances to the cottages are approached from a passage walkway that separates the cottages from their associated rear garden spaces. The street access to this walkway is adjacent to the appeal property.
The appeal property and the terrace of which it forms part is located in a residential area made up of a variety of semi-detached and detached houses and bungalows of variety of style and age. Many of these are set back from the street or are in closes or cul-de-sac locations that allow for a disjointed street scene, where street views area made up of a variety of the front side and rear elevations of these properties.
The proposal is for a tile hung dormer extension that would stretch to the full width of the roof slope of the appeal property that is away from the street. The extension is designed to read as being in 3 distinct parts, each part with a window that would stretch to the full width of the roof slope of the appeal property that is away from the street. The design of the extension in 3 parts has the effect of breaking down its apparent scale, with the two end parts having a shallow pitch to their roof that would hip with the existing roof slope. This design approach would lead to the apparent scale of what is quite a large dormer extension complimenting the scale of the appeal property.
The terrace of 4 cottages of which the appeal property forms part have been significantly altered. This is particularly apparent in the elevation of the terrace facing away from the street, where the differing wall colours, doors, window type and colours and mix of slate and asbestos tile roof materials do not result in a terrace of properties with a uniform character and appearance. [name] acknowledge that the proposal would represent the first apparent extension to the properties in the terrace, the addition of the proposed dormer extension to the appeal property would not, therefore result in harm to the character and appearance of the terrace as a whole.
The main views of the proposal from the public realm would be from [address], where the flank cheek of the extension would be apparent, and from where it would sit proud of the existing roof slope in which it would sit and above the gable wall end of the appeal property.
From my site visit it was evident that many of the bungalows and some houses in the area had been the subject of dormer extensions in a variety of roof slopes. Given the orientation of these properties to the street, as detailed above, these form a significant part of the general street scene of the local area. Within this context, the visibility of the proposal from the public and private realms would be in keeping with the local streetscene and would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the local area.
For these reasons I find that the proposal would be in accordance with Policy DM1 and D11 of the Mid Devon Local Plan (2020) (The Local Plan), Policy TC02 of the Cullompton Neighbourhood Plan (2021) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (the Framework), which collectively seek to ensure that development is of high quality design, a key aspect of sustainable development, and are sympathetic to local character.
Section 06
Living Conditions
The proposal would add additional windows at roof level and would result in additional opportunities to look outwards from the appeal property at a higher vantage point than currently possible. Concerns have been raised with regard to the additional overlooking that this would afford of the gardens of the cottages on to which the appeal property faces.
This additional overlooking would, however, be over and above the significant amount of overlooking that already exists from the ground and first floor of the appeal property and its neighbours in the terrace. I find, however, that this additional opportunity for overlooking would be to the degree that it would so substantially different from that already existing, that it would be experienced by those using the gardens as intrusive.
Similarly, I find that given the separating distances, the oblique angles of view and the extent of existing overlooking, that the additional degree of overlooking of other nearby residential properties would be similar to that from houses in this local area, and would be no greater than that to be expected in a developed residential area of this type and would not result in a significant loss of privacy to their occupiers.
The proposal would not, therefore, result in overlooking to a degree that would amount to a loss of privacy causing harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. For this reason, the proposal would accord with Policy DM11 of the Local Plan and Paragraph 130 of the Framework.
Section 07
Conditions
In the interests of certainty, I have attached the standard time limit condition for implementation of the planning permission.
Section 08
Conclusion
For the reasons given above and having regard to all matters raised the appeal is allowed.
Planning inspector and document dates
The official casework attribution is grouped under a one-way keyed hash and shown only by its local identifier. Decision-letter dates and page references are extracted by fixed first-page rules and checked against that authoritative record.
Appeal Decision
- Extracted inspector · page 1
- Inspector attribution ID 209No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 4 February 2022Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 9 December 2021 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3284762
- Application reference
- 21/00829/HOUSE
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Mid Devon District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000042
Casework details
The casework, procedure, development and linking details supplied by the official record.
- Casework type
- Householder (HAS)
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development type
- Householder developments
- Appeal type reason
- 1. Refused planning permission
- Appeal reason
- Refusal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- Not recorded
- Floor space
- 17 m²
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- No
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Not recorded
- Historic building grant made
- Not recorded
- Relates to a conservation area
- Not recorded
- Flooding is an issue
- Not recorded
- Site within an AONB
- Not recorded
- Site within an SSSI
- Not recorded
Decision and dates
The published outcome and every imported case date.
- Official decision
- Allowed
- Decision category
- Allowed
- Received date
- 13 October 2021
- Valid date
- 13 October 2021
- Start date
- 25 November 2021
- Planning authority decision date
- 28 July 2021
- Appeal decision date
- 4 February 2022
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- No
- Bespoke
- No
- Date recovered
- Not recorded
- Date not recovered or derecovered
- Not recorded
- Call-in date
- Not recorded
- Costs applied for
- No
- Enforcement grounds count
- Not recorded
- Enforcement grounds
- Not recorded
Source and catalogue history
When this record appeared in the rolling official release and when the catalogue stored it.
- Source
- Planning Inspectorate casework database
- Source data system
- Horizon
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 10041
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:25
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21