Appeal 6000736

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has identified policies (Policies GP1 and DW2) within the emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040. The Council has indicated that it is currently consulting on [name] of the emerging plan following the post examination letter from the Planning Inspectorate dated 18 December 2024, and the Council has indicated that Policies GP1 and DW2 are subject to modifications. As such, I cannot be certain about the final form of these policies, therefore I give the emerging plan limited weight in my decision. Accordingly, I have determined the appeal against the current development plan, the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 ([name] 2014) (Local Plan).

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The site is located near to the entrance of [address], a residential street. Upon entering the road, the two storey dwellings have a general consistency in their size, scale, and position within their plot, forming a cohesive pattern of development which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. A pair of semi-detached dwellings sit on either side of the entrance of [address]. The terraced dwellings next to the semi-detached dwellings follow the curve of the road and are sited at a different angle, resulting in an irregularly shaped gap between them. Although the road curves, the pattern of the semi-detached dwellings, a large gap and the terraced dwellings are symmetrical on either side of the road.

The proposal would infill the gap between No 4, a semi-detached dwelling, and No 6, an end terrace dwelling, with a detached dwelling, removing the existing single storey buildings on the appeal site. Although there is an existing side extension and garage on the site, a visual gap is still present at first floor level offering symmetry with the other side of the road.

I acknowledge that the removal of the side extension and garage at the site would be positive to the character of the area. However, infilling this space with a detached dwelling at an angled orientation would reduce the gap and the symmetry of the entrance of [address]. Although the front elevation of the proposal would broadly follow the curvature of the road, its angled orientation would lead to an awkward building line that would be at odds with the adjacent dwellings. Owing to its angled orientation and the detached design, the resulting dwelling would be a prominent addition to the street scene. As such, the symmetrical rhythm of the street scene would be eroded, and the proposal would therefore be at odds with the overall pattern of development at the entrance of [address].

Other detached dwellings are located on [address], and further west on [address]. However, they do not form part of the street scene at the entrance of [address], nor do they have the same symmetrical relationship with the entrance of [address] as the existing the semi-detached and terraced dwellings.

The appellant has provided commentary on alternative schemes for a dwelling in this location. [name] acknowledge the limitations of the site, I am unable to take alternative schemes into account and must determine this appeal on the merits of the evidence before me.

Accordingly, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies S1 and S2 of the Local Plan, and IPP Policy 4 of the Ipplepen Neighbourhood Development Plan 2023- 2033 ([name] 2023) which collectively seek to ensure that all new development is of high quality which reflects the character of Ipplepen and seeks to enhance the overall design quality of the area.

I acknowledge that the site would provide a carbon and thermally efficient two bedroom dwelling within an established residential area with access to local amenities, and that the proposal would increase biodiversity on site. I give these benefits moderate weight in my determination. However, they do not outweigh the significant harm I have found to the character and appearance of the area for the reasons set out above.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole 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.