Appeal 3345117
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
6 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
Replace pitched roof over existing garage with new flat roof balcony area.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
The appeal site is located in a prominent position at the top of [address], as it joins [address]. Its immediate surroundings are characterised by a mix of bungalows, chalet bungalows and the occasional two storey property. A small number of dwellings in the vicinity have balconies on their front elevations, including the neighbouring property which has a glazed balcony above its attached garage.
The detached garage upon which the proposed balcony would be constructed has a hipped roof which matches the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. Removing the roof and replacing it with a flat roof deck enclosed by a glazed balustrade would create a discordant feature which would not integrate with, or enhance the character of, the existing dwelling or the street scene of either [address] or [address]. The harm caused to the street scene would be accentuated by the prominence of the site in the view from the road as approached up the hill from where the proposed development would appear incongruous.
Whilst there are other balconies in the road, I am not aware of their planning status. They appear as extensions to their host dwelling rather than as a detached platform as would be the case with the appeal proposal. As a result, they do not look incongruous in the street scene. Notwithstanding this, each proposal must be considered on its own merits and the presence of other balconies in the vicinity does not justify the harm that would be caused by the proposal.
Whilst the Council’s reason for refusal refers to conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, it has not drawn attention to any specific parts of the Framework with which the proposal would conflict. Nevertheless, for the reasons given, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area in conflict with Policies S1, S2 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2014.
Section 05
Other Matters
Reference is made to the manner in which the planning application was handled by the Council. This is a matter which can be pursued through other processes. It does not have a bearing on my consideration of the appeal.
[name] also note the comment from the Town Council, for the reasons outlined above, the proposal would cause clear harm which gives rise to conflict with the development plan.
Section 06
Conclusion
The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.
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 4802No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 October 2024Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 8 October 2024 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 3345117
- Application reference
- 23/01859/HOU
- Lead case reference
- Not recorded
- Planning authority
- Teignbridge District Council
- Planning authority code
- E07000045
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
- Not recorded
- Number of residences
- 0
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- 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
- Dismissed
- Decision category
- Dismissed
- Received date
- 27 May 2024
- Valid date
- 27 May 2024
- Start date
- 9 July 2024
- Planning authority decision date
- 22 May 2024
- Appeal decision date
- 22 October 2024
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
- Not recorded
- 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
- 58792
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:28
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:24
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21