Appeal 6000495

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area and host property, and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to privacy.

The appeal site is a moderately sized parcel of land which contains a dwelling with an open frontage. The wider area is residential with dwellings following [site address] in a linear pattern. While there is variation in the design and style of dwellings within the area, the host dwelling has a symmetrical appearance to the neighbouring dwelling, [name] which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and follows the symmetry that the nearby cottages at 1, 2 and 3 [name] also share.

The proposed development would increase the overall height of the dwelling, through the addition of an extra storey and also includes a Juliet balcony and box dormer to the frontage. These changes would erode the symmetry with the neighbouring property and result in a development that would be visually jarring within the street scene.

The proposed box dormer would be large, and the proposed materials would result in a feature that stands out as incongruous within the wider area. While the use of glazing is visible within the area, the large amount of glazing proposed would only highlight the developments incongruous presence and jarring effect with [name].

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and host property. It would be contrary to Policies S1, S2 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 Adopted 6th May 2014 (LP). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that proposals integrate with and, where possible, enhancing the character of the adjoining built form and that the design and materials are complementary to the existing building.

The proposed box dormer would be located at an elevated position on the front of the existing dwelling. Nos 1, 2 and [address] of three small cottages that are located next to the appeal site but set against the road. As a result, their gardens extend towards the appeal property.

The windows that would serve the dormer would be large and through the elevated position would allow views towards the gardens of [name] as well as the conservatory that exists to the rear of No 3. I note the existing vegetation provides some screening between the boundaries, however the elevated position, combined with the already lower land levels of the gardens of [name] would mean that views would be possible when looking down towards these gardens. The small size of the cottages when combined with their modest sized gardens would mean that any loss of privacy would be exacerbated.

I have had regard to the photographs provided by the appellant; however, these only illustrate certain angles and demonstrate that views towards the conservatory located to the rear of No 3 would be possible. I am also not convinced that views would not be possible towards the gardens for the reasons outlined.

I note that the appellant considers that Nos 1,2 and 3 [name] are already overlooked by another dwelling behind the appeal site. However, this is set back further than the appeal site which mitigates such views and, in any case, existing overlooking would not justify allowing increased or further overlooking.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to privacy. It would be contrary to Policy WE8 of the LP which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development would not reduce the level of privacy enjoyed by neighbouring properties.

The Council have referenced Policy H12 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040 [name] 2024 (Emerging Plan) within both reasons for refusal. This Emerging Plan has been submitted for public examination, however, due to the unknown extent of any unresolved objections I only afford limited weight to the conflict with this Policy.

The appellant has referred to a number of developments in an attempt to justify the proposed development. I do not have the full details in respect of such examples so I cannot be sure of the circumstances. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

In regard to the developments on the same side of the road as the appeal site1, these all relate to dwellings located within larger plots with greater set back distances when compared to the appeal site. The changes do not therefore have the same impact on the street scene or host buildings when compared to the

In respect of Fernleigh and [name], both of these dwellings are located within sizeable plots which means that the changes are not incongruous within the street scene.

In regard to [name], The Moorings, [address] ([address]) and Laburnum, while there are design variations, these are all dwellings of a similar style and scale meaning that none stand out as incongruous within the wider area.

I note reference has been made to a certificate of lawfulness for proposed conversion of existing garage into additional living space at [name]. However, I have not been provided with any details of this and in any case, it was evident from my site visit that the dwellings still currently maintain a symmetrical appearance.

I note the appellant’s concerns with the Council’s handling of the planning application which include changes in officer, miscommunication and the lack of opportunity to make design changes to the proposed development. However, while I note the appellant’s frustration, I am only in a position to consider the planning merits of appeal before me.

I acknowledge the appellant’s willingness to make design changes to the proposed development, however, the purpose of the appeal process is to consider that which was originally submitted to the Council, on which interested parties views were sought, for which I have considered.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.