Appeal 6000669
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
for an extension of existing garage to create upper level garden room home office.
Section 02
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an extension of existing garage to create upper level garden room home office at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00744/HOU, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.
Section 03
Main Issue
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
Section 04
Reasons
[site address] is a dormer bungalow located on a hill which is accessed from a long partially tarmacked access lane. [site address] is the only dwelling accessed from the lane, and vehicular access is only possible up to the appeal site, after which a small, informal path leads to steps. The garage, the subject of this appeal, is sited at the bottom of the steeply sloping garden, which sits considerably lower than the host and the neighbouring dwelling. The area as a whole is characterised by its spacious leafy feel, and includes smaller areas, such as that in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, which has discreet residential dwellings tucked along more intimate lanes. Where the appeal site is visible, it is viewed in the same context as [address], a block of flats sited lower down the hill.
The existing garage, which opens out onto the lane, is prominent within its immediate surroundings. It therefore follows that the increased height resulting from the proposal would also be prominent within the lane. That being said, even with the increased bulk and massing, the proposal would retain the intimate and discreet residential character of the lane. The proposal would not be any more prominent within the lane than the existing garage and would not result in a discordant addition.
The access lane is separated from [site address] by a large, grassed area and mature trees. As such, views towards [site address] from this road are limited. The increased height would be visible from [site address] ; however, the whole garage would be predominantly shielded from view by the mature trees. At the time of my site visit the trees were not in leaf and views of the appeal site were not obvious, particularly for those walking or driving along [site address] . Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of [site address] .
Composite cladding is not a common material used in surrounding buildings. That being said, there is some variety in the type of external materials and given the limited visibility, the use of composite cladding is appropriate.
Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. It would comply with Policies S1, S2 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 (2014), which seek to ensure that developments are high quality and respond to the characteristics of the site, its wider context and the surrounding area. The Council has also identified that Policies DW2, DW3 and H11 of the Emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040 are relevant in this case, which broadly seek to achieve similar aims as the policies of the current Local Plan. I have limited evidence before me regarding the current status of the Local Plan; therefore, I give these policies limited weight. In any case, I have concluded that the development complies with the current Local Plan.
Section 05
Other Matters
Concerns have been raised regarding the use of the proposal as a separate dwelling. However, the is for a garden room home office, therefore its use as a separate dwelling is not part of the development before me. Similarly, I do not have any evidence before me to suggest that a Devon bank has been or would be altered as a result of the proposal. In any case, this matter does not form part of the proposal. Finally, there are concerns that the existing parking facilities within the garage are not utilised. Nevertheless, there is no evidence before me to suggest that there are restrictions in place to require that the garage can only be used for car parking and cannot be used for other domestic activities such as storage.
Section 06
Conditions
In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty.
The Council has suggested a number of conditions, which I have considered. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the arboriculture statement dated 14 April 2025, including the tree protection plan is necessary owing to the proximity of nearby trees, in the interests of ensuring tree health. A condition is also necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the Surface Water Management Proposal dated 13 May 2025, to ensure surface water is suitably managed. Finally, the Council suggested a condition requiring the works to be carried out in accordance with the Bat and Bird Assessment dated 15 April 2025. I have imposed this condition which is necessary to ensure that, in the event that any bats are present on site, that appropriate measures are taken.
Section 07
Conclusion
For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.
Section 08
Schedule of Conditions
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 24.54_PL_001, 24.54_PL_100 [name], 24.54_PL_101 [name], 24.54_PL_102 [name], and the Location Plan.
Development should be carried out in accordance with the recommendations as stated in the Bat and Bird Assessment by [name] dated 15 th April 2025.
Development should be carried out in accordance with the Arboriculture Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and [name] carried out by [name] dated 14 th April 2025.
Development should be carried out in accordance with the Surface water Management Proposal by [name] dated 13th May 2025.
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 4518No official casework-database value to compare
- Extracted decision date · page 1
- 22 January 2026Matches the official casework database
- Extracted site visit dates
- 3 December 2025 (page 1)
Reference and authority
Official identifiers and the planning authority recorded against this case.
- Case reference
- 6000669
- Application reference
- 25/00744/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
- Not recorded
- Appeal reason
- refused
- Type detail
- Householder
- Jurisdiction
- No Jurisdiction Associated
- Link status
- Not recorded
Site and development
Published appeal-site measurements and planning designations, without the withheld precise location fields.
- Site area
- 0 hectares
- Floor space
- 1,671 m²
- Number of residences
- Not recorded
- Site in Green Belt
- No
- Agricultural holding
- Not recorded
- Affects setting of a listed building
- Yes
- 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
- 8 September 2025
- Valid date
- 8 September 2025
- Start date
- 18 September 2025
- Planning authority decision date
- 4 July 2025
- Appeal decision date
- 22 January 2026
Case administration
Published recovery, call-in, costs and enforcement information for this case.
- Redetermined
- Not recorded
- Bespoke
- Not recorded
- 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
- Back Office
- Dataset status
- Current release
- Catalogue record ID
- 83151
- First seen
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Last seen
- 20 August 2026 at 16:29
- Removed from release
- Not recorded
- Record created
- 20 August 2026 at 14:25
- Record updated
- 24 August 2026 at 16:21