Teignbridge District Council appeal evidence
Refused over area character and appearance in Teignbridge?
Learn which local design details selected Teignbridge appeal extracts discuss.
Recently refused?
Create a free account for a private planning workspace.
No payment at signup. Refusal-review ordering may not be open.
- Matched locally
- 60 of 88
- eligible decision families
- Allowed
- 14
- matched appeal records
- Dismissed
- 46
- matched appeal records
- Householder
- 54
- of 60 matched records
AI-assisted. Cited sources and wording were checked before publication. Based on 5 source-linked examples shown below. Review method and limits.
Planning Data area point: Teignbridge LPA (50.606374, −3.593749). This is the published representative point for the authority boundary, not a town hall, camera position or appeal site.
Teignbridge District Council appeal findings
Teignbridge street patterns, mass and screening
Dismissed extracts 83152 and 56420 state harm without design analysis, limiting the selected examples.
Counted against appeals
Street-scene concerns in Teignbridge
Set-back frontages and boundaries
In 25365, the inspector described homes often set back behind gardens and driveways, with landscaping, stone walls and hedges giving the street scene consistency.
Conclusion without design detail
In 83152, the inspector concluded the proposal would harm the area’s character and appearance, but the extract gives no design explanation.
Dominant street scene
In 56420, the conclusion was that identified harm conflicted with development being complementary to existing buildings and avoiding a dominant street scene.
Helped or needed
Mass and screening that helped
Lower, broken-up dwelling form
In 89602, lower height, horizontal emphasis, a stepped form and combined materials would break up the dwelling’s mass. Landscaping could help assimilate it into the hillside.
Leafless screening
In 83151, a grassed area and mature trees limited views from the access lane. Even when leafless, views of the appeal site from the road were not obvious.
Your refusal notice
Check these details
- Does the refusal identify a frontage pattern of gardens, walls or hedges?
- Does the refusal say your proposal appears too tall or too bulky?
- Does the refusal identify views that stay open when trees are leafless?
This draft uses selected Teignbridge extracts rather than the full appeal files. These decisions do not predict another result.
Appeal evidence examples
Compare allowed and dismissed appeal reasoning
Each example separates the development, the Inspector-stated issue that selected it, and the reasoning from the decision. Compare the facts as well as the outcome: these examples do not predict how a different proposal would be decided.
Allowed appeal examples
2 examples
1 June 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
replacement dwelling.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The overall height of the proposed dwelling would be lower than the existing ridge of the bungalow. Its horizontal emphasis, stepped form and combination of materials all assist in breaking up the mass of the building. Additional landscaping could also be secured by a planning condition which would help to assimilate the development into the hillside. Therefore, whilst it would appear above the ridge of properties on Woodland Avenue, it would not appear overbearing or visually jarring.
Paragraph 10 · Source page 2
22 January 2026 · Allowed
Development described in the decision
for an extension of existing garage to create upper level garden room home office.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The access lane is separated from [site address] by a large, grassed area and mature trees. As such, views towards [site address] from this road are limited. The increased height would be visible from [site address] ; however, the whole garage would be predominantly shielded from view by the mature trees. At the time of my site visit the trees were not in leaf and views of the appeal site were not obvious, particularly for those walking or driving along [site address] . Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of [site address] .
Paragraph 5 · Source pages 1, 2
Dismissed appeal examples
3 examples
16 December 2022 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
for the erection of wall to replace soil bank and privet bushes set back from the highway.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 4 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
The area is defined by residential properties which are set back from the road, often with a front garden and driveway. Front boundary treatments vary but mostly comprise landscaping, a stone wall or the same with hedging atop. This garners a consistency to the street scene, the quality of which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 5 · Source page 1
22 January 2026 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
a new dwelling and associated landscaping including demolition of existing single storey structures and garage attached to [site address] .
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 3 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Accordingly, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies S1 and S2 of the Local Plan, and IPP Policy 4 of the Ipplepen Neighbourhood Development Plan 2023- 2033 ([name] 2023) which collectively seek to ensure that all new development is of high quality which reflects the character of Ipplepen and seeks to enhance the overall design quality of the area.
Paragraph 9 · Source page 2
30 August 2024 · Dismissed
Development described in the decision
the erection of a garage to the front.
Issue identified by the Inspector
The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.
Paragraph 2 · Source page 1
Reasoning from the decision
Overall, despite the continued support offered by the Parish Council and absence of any local opposition, the harm that I have identified to the character and appearance of the area means that there would be conflict with Policies S1, S2 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033, adopted in 2014 as far as they require good design that maintains and integrates with the character of the adjoining built environment, and which is complementary to the existing building and not dominate the street scene. For these same reasons there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s objectives for achieving well-designed and beautiful places.
Paragraph 7 · Source page 2