Appeal 6001049

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted revised plans during the course of the appeal process. The Planning Appeals – England, Procedural Guide advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. In these circumstances I find that the proposed revisions amount to a fundamental change to the proposal. In this regard and in the interests of fairness, I have therefore determined this appeal on the basis of the original drawings.

The emerging Teignbridge Local Plan (TLP) 2020-2040 has now been through examination and is subject to modifications prior to formal adoption. As it is at an advanced stage it can be given greater weight.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area.

The appeal site is a two-storey end of terrace house constructed of red brick and grey slate roof tiles. No [site address] sits adjacent to both the [name] and the [name]. The site lies within a suburban predominantly residential area, characterised by an eclectic mix of building styles varying greatly in size, form, spacing and appearance.

The appellant has directed me to examples of front and rear dormers in the locality and I observed a number of these during my site visit. [name] am unaware of the particular planning history for these sites I have based the decision on my own observations. While dormers are not uncommon within the street scene, including flat roof dormers, these are generally smaller than the proposal and I therefore find that these examples add little weight in favour of the matter before me.

The addition of two rooflights to the front roof space would result in only minimal visual changes to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Moreover, as the street scene is varied, these changes would not be out of keeping, or jar, with the surrounding roof forms.

However, the proposed L-shaped dormer at the rear of the property, by way of its large and boxy form, would result in a feature which is discordant with the host dwelling, harming its proportions and appearance. This is further exacerbated by the proposed cladding boards which fail to harmonise with the built form of the host dwelling.

Whilst to the rear of the dwelling, the proposal would be clearly visible in views from the street scene along [site address] . [name], views of the proposal between properties as well as from the rear gardens of surrounding dwellings, would also affect the appreciation of the character and appearance of the dwelling. The rooflights to the proposed dormer would be visibly prominent above the roof ridge line and appear in wider views along the street scene, further eroding the character of the host dwelling and the area.

The bulk, form and design of the proposed rear dormer would be an incongruous addition to the dwelling and would be harmful to its character and appearance. For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area.

The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies S1, S2 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033, Policies DW2 and H11 of the emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040, and Policy EXM3 of the Exminster Neighbourhood Plan 2015 which, amongst other things, requires development to harmonise with existing built form and character.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.