Appeal 6001341

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development, taken from the application form, refers to a detached garage; this has subsequently been removed from the proposals.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.

The appeal site is a corner plot at the junction of [address] and [site address] . It contains a detached two storey cottage of rendered cob with pitched roofs, facing [site address] to the east. The house has modest two storey and single storey rear extensions. [site address] (the Cottage) has a larger garden than other houses in the vicinity. This, combined with the traditional materials and detailing of the Cottage, gives the appeal site a more rural character than surrounding development in the village.

The appeal site has established hedgerows on its north and east boundaries. It is on the edge of Lympstone and its southern boundary is marked by [name], with fields beyond. The appeal site is therefore prominent in views as [site address] crosses the Brook and enters Lympstone from open countryside to the south.

The surrounding area comprises residential properties, predominantly of two storeys. There are short terraces of brick and stone houses immediately to the north and east of the site. Immediately to the west of the appeal site is a row of more modern houses, which are a mixture of detached and semi-detached properties. They back onto [name], which forms the edge of the settlement at this point, with countryside beyond.

The development proposed includes the demolition of the modest two storey and single storey rear extensions and their replacement with a substantial two storey extension. The ridge height of the extension would be approximately the same as that of the host dwelling, although the ridge would step down as it meets the Cottage, in the form of a linking block.

The proposed extension would roughly double the size of the dwelling on plan, and would be a dominant feature in views of the Cottage from the north and across [name] from the south. The step down of the ridge height, and the lowering of the eaves and cat-slide roof, to the south-west and north-east elevations, would not adequately reduce the visual mass of the extension or mitigate its apparent bulk.

The scale and massing of the extension would be at odds with the modest scale and more rural character of the Cottage. It would be an overbearing and overly dominant addition. [address] occupies a larger plot than other houses in the vicinity but that, in itself, does not diminish the harm caused by the scale of the proposed extension relative to the host dwelling.

The existing hedges to the north and east boundaries of the appeal site would not mitigate the visual impact of the development and, furthermore, such features are not permanent and may change seasonally and over time. Although the development would be constructed of materials matching those of the main house, or buildings in the surrounding area, that would not mitigate the harm due to the size of the proposed extension.

The incongruous extension would be prominent in glimpsed views on the approach to Lympstone from the south. It would reduce the distinctive visual gap between the Cottage and modern development to its rear, contributing to harm to the character and appearance of the wider area.

The development does not comply with the Council’s Householder Design Guide, 2018, which states that the size and design of extensions should normally be subservient to the existing dwelling to allow the original building to remain dominant.

The development would harm the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031, adopted 2016, which seeks to ensure that development is of high quality design and of a scale and massing which relate to their context without harming the character of an area.

The decision notice cites Policy HN07 of the emerging East Devon Local Plan 2020-2042, dated February 2025. The policy relates to development outside settlement boundaries, which is not the case with the appeal site. Therefore, this policy is not determinative in my decision.

The appeal site is not in a conservation area, nor is the Cottage a listed building, and the development may in other respects be acceptable. These are not factors which weigh in favour of allowing the appeal and do not diminish the harm that I have found on the main issue.

Two comments in support of the development were received in response to the planning application and a third response raised no objection. However, these are not reasons, in themselves, to allow development which is otherwise harmful.

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.