Appeal 6000853

The appeal is dismissed.

Policies in the emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040, (the emerging Local Plan) published November 2024, have been cited in the decision notice. This plan is currently at post-Examination stage, and given its advanced stage I give those policies weight as material considerations.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area; and • The effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of 17 and [address] and [address].

The appeal site contains a detached bungalow on the west side of [address]. The street slopes southward along its entire length, and [site address] (No 19) sits at the southern end of a row of similar bungalows. They have a consistent building line, with modest front and rear gardens and limited separation between neighbouring dwellings.

The surrounding area is an established housing estate, predominantly of detached bungalows of similar materials and design, and from a similar period. Whilst there are small pockets of two storey houses, notably on [address] opposite the appeal site, the area has a unified character: of low scale housing with an open aspect southward as the land falls away.

The development proposed would increase the height of the main body of No 19 from one to two storeys, with eaves and ridge heights raised by approximately 1.7m. Extensive full-height glazing, with Juliette balconies, is proposed to a wide box dormer to the south elevation. There would be additional first floor windows to habitable rooms on the west and east elevations.

Given the unified character, including the low rise nature of No 19 and its immediate neighbours, the proposed upwards extension would be an incongruous addition within the surrounding area. The proposed weatherboard cladding would exacerbate the visual impact of the development, notwithstanding the occasional use of that material on other properties in the surrounding area.

Due to the scale of the proposed extension, and the surrounding topography, the development would appear overbearing when viewed from properties to the south of the appeal site. It would therefore be an inappropriate addition to the host building which fails to respond to its context.

The development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. It would, therefore, be contrary to paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which advises that development should add to the overall quality of an area and be sympathetic to local character.

The development would also be contrary to Policy H11 of the emerging Local Plan, which requires that the design of development complements the surroundings and is well related to the original building.

Policy DW3 of the emerging Local Plan is cited on the decision notice. It relates to design and amenity standards for new homes and does not appear to relate to the proposed development. Therefore, this policy has not been determinative in my

The development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site and the surrounding area. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policies S2 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033, (the Local Plan) adopted 2014. Taken together these seek to ensure that development is not overbearing and is integrated with and, where possible, enhances the character of the adjoining built environment.

The development would also be contrary to Policy BE2 of the Teignmouth Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2033, adopted 2024, which seeks to ensure high-quality design which is well-related to the scale, form, density, and character of the proposal’s setting.

The development would be to the north of, and raised slightly above, No 17. There are a limited number of windows to the north side of No 17, but no evidence has been submitted to indicate they are to habitable rooms. Detailed sections showing the development in relation to neighbouring properties have not been submitted; however, based on my observations at my site visit, I am not persuaded that the development would result in unacceptable harm to the outlook from, or loss of light to, windows on the north side of No 17.

However, the proposed increase in height of No 19 with extensive glazing to the south elevation at first floor would introduce overlooking of the boundary with No

The glazed doors and full height windows, with Juliette balconies, would be to the lounge and dining/kitchen areas, and it is reasonable to expect that these areas would be in frequent use.

Due to their elevated position and proximity to the shared boundary they would directly overlook, and be visible from, the rear of No 17. The development would, therefore, be an overbearing addition which would have a harmful impact on the privacy of the outdoor amenity and front entrance spaces of No 17. The existing hedge to the southern boundary of the appeal site would not mitigate the impact of overlooking sufficiently; furthermore, such a feature is not permanent and may change seasonally and over time.

No 21 is to the north of, and slightly elevated above, the appeal site. Views of the outdoor amenity space of No 21, from the proposed window to the west elevation of No 19, would not easily obtained due to the sharply oblique angle of the view. The development would not, therefore, result in unacceptable harm to the privacy of occupants of No 21.

However, the development would increase the height of the main body of No [address] proximity to the shared boundary with No 21. Based on my observations at my site visit, due to the limited separation between neighbouring dwellings the development would result in harm to the outlook from, and loss of light to, south facing windows to habitable rooms of No 21. Any harm would not be sufficiently mitigated by other windows to those rooms.

The appeal site is to the north-east of No 49 in a slightly elevated position. Given this relationship and the separation distances, the development would not have an unacceptable impact on outlook and light levels for its occupants.

However, due to overlooking from the extensive glazed windows and doors, and Juliette balconies, to the first floor of the south elevation, as well as the additional first floor window to the west elevation, the development would impact on the privacy of occupants of No 49. Although some views would be oblique, the development would have a harmful impact in respect of overlooking of the rear outdoor amenity space and windows to habitable rooms, to both the north and east elevations, of No 49.

To reduce overlooking of No 49, the appellant has suggested a willingness to replace the proposed window to the west elevation with a high level window. However, I am required to determine the appeal against the drawings submitted and a high level window does not form part of this proposal. Furthermore, this would not address issues with the proposed windows to the south elevation.

The development would have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupants of 17 and [address] and [address]. It would therefore be contrary to Policies GP1 and H12 of the emerging Local Plan, which taken together seek to ensure that development does not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of nearby residential occupants.

Due to the unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupants of 17 and [address] and [address], the development would be contrary to Policies S1 and WE8 of the Local Plan. Taken together these seek to ensure that development does not result in the undue loss of outlook or light to habitable rooms of neighbouring properties, reduce the level of privacy enjoyed by the occupants of neighbouring properties, or have a dominant or overbearing impact.

My attention has been drawn to a number of developments in the vicinity. Limited details have been provided for each example. A number of the examples relate to dormer windows within existing roof slopes and not upwards extensions. Others, such as those on [address] and Close, would not appear to raise similar issues, such as with impacts on outlook and loss of light. I have determined the appeal based on the individual circumstances of the case, and these comparisons do not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.