Appeal 6000609

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for retention of replacement flat roofs on garages with a dual pitched roof at [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00572/HOU and the plans submitted with it reference [site address] [site address] TQRQM25087204604983, Site Plan [site address] [site address] TQRQM25090114156129 and [name]. 002 “as is” Elevations & Overhead.

At the time of my site visit, I saw that the development had been completed, and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

I have used the Council’s description of development in the banner heading above, on the basis that it concisely describes the development.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] with regard to outlook.

The appeal site relates to a pair of detached garages with a dual pitched roof which are associated with the dwelling at No [site address] [site address] but are separated by a privately owned path which gives access to the rear of the properties. The appeal site is located within a dense residential area with many houses being terraced within the immediate and wider area.

The garage is located close to No [address] which is a two-storey dwelling and a window on the first floor faces towards the development. There is no dispute between the parties that this window is shown as serving a bedroom, albeit I note the appellant’s concern over the small size of the room. The Council did not undertake a visit to No 7, however based their assessment on sales particulars for the property, which illustrate that the window serves a small bedroom within this property.

The appellant suggests that the window was depicted as being much larger than it is and that the position differs from the sales particulars that were considered by the Council. I am mindful from site observations that the size of the window is smaller, and its location does differ from that shown on the sales particulars considered by the Council and instead serves a narrow corridor that leads to the bedroom.

I acknowledge that the garage is located close to this first-floor window, however, the small size of the window combined with it predominantly serving a narrow corridor I consider that opportunities for outlook would be limited to passing glances. This, combined with the dense residential character of the area would mean that the development is not overbearing within this context for the occupiers of No 7.

I therefore conclude that the development does not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] with regard to outlook. I find no conflict with Policies S1 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 Adopted 6th May

Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development protects the living conditions of neighbours.

The Council have referenced Policy H12 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040 [name] 2024 (Emerging Plan). 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.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.