Appeal 6003073

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development was amended subsequent to an email from the Council to the appellant dated 9 September 2025. I have therefore adopted the revised description in the header above, as shown on the Council’s decision notice, rather than the wording used on the original application form. As “Householder application” is not an act of development, I have removed that element from the description.

The main issues are the effect of the development on:

the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy, and;

the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a two‐storey semi‐detached Victorian dwelling located within a small rural cluster, on the periphery of Tavistock. [site address] exhibits a characteristic reversed orientation typical of rural Victorian villas, with its principal elevation addressing the private rear garden.

The existing patio is limited in depth and lower than the finished floor level of the host building. The proposed floor plans (A-040-0001 Rev P1) provide a datum of 0 (zero) within the existing snug and hallway, this height indication is replicated within the proposed extension and patio landing.

The corollary of this is that the level of the existing patio would need to be raised to achieve a finished floor level in the proposed extension to match the existing floor level of the host building. Additionally, these works would incorporate an extended patio area, which would project further into the garden, with steps and accessible ramps leading down to the lower garden.

The increased height and depth of the raised patio and ramps would allow users to readily look over the boundary fence and directly into the rear garden areas of the [address], resulting in a significant loss of privacy to its occupiers. In this context, the proposal would materially and unacceptably alter the relationship between the appeal property and the neighbouring garden.

Furthermore, the proposal would create a blank, featureless flank wall positioned on the raised platform along the shared boundary. Its scale and form would appear visually oppressive, creating a greater sense of enclosure and an overbearing outlook for the neighbouring occupiers.

Accordingly, I conclude on the first main issue, that the proposed development would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy. The development is therefore contrary to Policy DEV1 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (2019) (JLP), which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure development provides for satisfactory outlook and privacy.

Although [site address] is not listed, not identified as a non‐designated heritage asset, and not located within a Conservation Area, it forms one of a pair of largely unaltered Victorian villas. The principal elevation contains traditional features such as a bay window, varied rooflines, and decorative woodwork. [name] acknowledge the appellant’s comment in regard to the retention of the bay window in an alternative scheme, I am required to determine the appeal on the evidence before me.

The proposed extension would be substantial in scale, extending almost the full width of the principal elevation and sited on a raised platform, thereby accentuating its massing. The proposed hipped roof form would be at odds with the existing gabled frontage and would heighten the box‐like appearance of the extension, which would further erode the character of the host dwelling.

Middlemoor is a hamlet comprised of a small, scattered pattern of predominantly detached and semi-detached dwellings set within the open moorland landscape. The hamlet’s residential buildings sit informally among streams, natural slopes, in a secluded, traditional rural character. There is no predominant design, but the dwellings generally turn toward the surrounding natural landscape rather than facing a structured streetscape.

[name] have found harm to the character of the host building, due to the siting of the proposal and local topography, it would not have an adverse impact on or harm the street scene or the character of the area.

The appellant highlighted a neighbouring extension and other alterations and the variation of the scale of these in the immediate locality of the appeal site. The adjacent dwelling has a single-storey extension which extends further into the garden space than this proposal. However, the extension is set away from the boundary with Glenside, at a lower level than the host dwellings finished floor level and has retained key architectural features including the bay window. Therefore, it is not directly comparable with the appeal proposal.

I am unaware of the particular planning history for those other examples highlighted but found nothing about the alterations I observed during my wider site inspection, that stood out as incongruous or harmful to the host building or wider area. I have therefore assessed the proposal on its own merits.

For the reasons given above, I conclude on the second main issue, that while the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, it would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host building. The development is therefore contrary to Policies DEV1, DEV20 and DEV23 of the JLP which, amongst other things, requires development proposals to have proper regard to local distinctiveness, visual impact, scale, massing and character.

The Council’s handling of the planning application has not factored into my decision, and I have determined the appeal only on the planning merits of the case.

The appellant asserts that the proposal would improve the useability and accessibility of the appeal dwelling, but little weight can be attached to personal circumstances.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.