Appeal 6003798

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The Emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040 (ELP) is at examination stage. The Council has identified that the proposal would conflict with policies DW2 and H11 of this Plan. However, it is not in evidence whether these policies are subject to unresolved objections as emerging policies. As such, I have afforded only moderate weight to these policies in my consideration of the merits of the proposal.

The Council have included Policy DW3 of the ELP as a reason for refusal. However, this refers to the Council’s Design Standards and includes a list of required provisions, none of which relate to householder extensions. [name] have not been directed towards its relevance in regard to the proposal, I have found that this policy weighs neither for, nor against the proposal.

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

The appeal building is a link detached two-storey residential dwelling. It is located in a row of similarly set back and designed linked detached dwellings, mainly with simple pitched roofs, matching materials, and similar fenestration. Whilst there is evidence of some alterations to various properties in the row, on the whole the row presents as coherent and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. To the front of the appeal building is a privately owned road and four large buildings that are a college and residential setting for supporting adults.

The rear roofs of the houses along [site address] are predominantly undeveloped and therefore present a coherent and consistent roofscape. Whilst rear elevation views of the host dwelling are more limited than the front, views are patently available from [address], [address] and in part from [address]. The exception to the evident consistent roof slopes, the end property on [site address] includes roof alterations and front and rear dormers. However, the pitched roof dormers complement the existing house and are subservient.

The proposed flat roofed, box like rear dormer would almost occupy the entire height and width of the rear roof, dominating the rear roofscape. This would not be subservient to the host dwelling. Consequently, the proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with policy S2 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033, insofar as they require extensions to be well-designed, complimentary, proportionate, and subservient to the host dwelling. Furthermore, whilst attracting only moderate weight, the proposal would conflict with ELP policies DW2 and H11, insofar as they seek to ensure that development complements the host building and maintains or enhances the character of the host building and the surrounding area.

I acknowledge that the proposal would improve the internal layout and functionality of the dwelling, allowing the building to meet the current and future needs of the occupants. It would also enhance the overall standard of the accommodation without increasing the footprint of the dwelling and retaining the current garden size. However, these matters would not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

I accept that the proposal would not result in any loss of privacy, daylight, or outlook for neighbouring properties. However, these are neutral considerations in the planning balance. Also, I note that the Parish Council did not object; however, that does not indicate support for the proposal and is a neutral consideration only.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.