For the raising of roof and conversion to habitable accommodation
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Fallback Position
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 13 January 2025
by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 27 January 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/D/24/3347872
2 The Barnfield, Jerrard Close, Honiton, Devon EX14 1DX
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr Justin Wright against the decision of East Devon District Council.
• The application Ref is 24/0926/FUL.
• The development proposed is for the raising of roof and conversion to habitable accommodation.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matter
2. Since the planning application, the subject of this appeal, was determined a new
version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) has been
published (12 December 2024). There has been no material change to National
Planning Policy in respect of householder appeals and therefore I consider that it
was not necessary to refer back to the parties. I have determined the appeal on
this basis.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and
appearance of the area.
Reasons
4. The appeal dwelling comprises an end of terrace two storey house; and much like
its adjoining neighbour at 1 The Barnfield it has a two storey gable projection to its
front elevation. It is in an elevated position relative to the carriageway of Streamers
Meadows which slopes down in a southerly direction from King Street.
5. Due to the fall in ground levels, houses to the south including nos. 65 – 59 sit at a
lower level than the appeal dwelling. Taking into account the fall in topography, the
raising of the roof, along with an increase in height of the front gable would run
counter to the lay of the land which appears to dip at its lowest point around the
access into the development known as Lilac Haven.
6. I acknowledge that the area within which the appeal dwelling is located comprises a
range of building types; being of various ages, styles and forms, and whilst I note
that the north western end of the terrace is, in the main, higher than the rest of the
terrace, I consider that it is not materially so.
Appeal Decision APP/U1105/D/24/3347872
2
7. Ultimately each case must be assessed on its own merits and I consider that the
proposal would give rise to an incongruous addition to the street scene by virtue of
its overall height and design in what amounts to a visually prominent position.
Therefore, whilst I acknowledge that the appeal dwelling is set back from the public
highway and that would, to some degree, lessen the visual impact of the proposed
height increase, the increased verticality of the host dwelling including that of the
front gable feature, would comprise a retrograde step.
8. It has not been proven that the appeal proposal could be deemed permitted
development and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I give this limited
weight as a fallback position; notwithstanding that I acknowledge that the proposal
would enable the appellant and their family to continue living at the property in a
time when rising house prices and the cost of living mean that moving elsewhere is
an unrealistic option for them. It is commendable that the appellant has gleaned
the support of the Town Council and whilst I accept that no third party objections
were made, these aspects in favour of the proposal do not outweigh the harm that
would be caused to the character and appearance of the area from the proposed
development. I therefore find that the proposal is contrary to Policy D1 of the East
Devon Local Plan 2013 – 2031 (adopted 2016) which requires development to be
of a high quality design and that proposals will only be permitted where they ensure
that the scale, massing and height of buildings relate well to their context.
Conclusion
9. Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the
appeal be dismissed.
C J Tivey
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.