For an extension of existing garage to create upper level garden room home office

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 December 2025 by R Dickson BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000669 Ness Dene, Ness Drive, Shaldon, Teignmouth TQ14 0HP • 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 Alan Swift against the decision of Teignbridge District Council. • The application Ref is 25/00744/HOU. • The development proposed is for an extension of existing garage to create upper level garden room home office. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an extension of existing garage to create upper level garden room home office at Ness Dene, Ness Drive, Shaldon, Teignmouth TQ14 0HP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00744/HOU, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. Reasons 3. Ness Dene is a dormer bungalow located on a hill which is accessed from a long partially tarmacked access lane. Ness Dene is the only dwelling accessed from the lane, and vehicular access is only possible up to the appeal site, after which a small, informal path leads to steps. The garage, the subject of this appeal, is sited at the bottom of the steeply sloping garden, which sits considerably lower than the host and the neighbouring dwelling. The area as a whole is characterised by its spacious leafy feel, and includes smaller areas, such as that in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, which has discreet residential dwellings tucked along more intimate lanes. Where the appeal site is visible, it is viewed in the same context as Dunmore Court, a block of flats sited lower down the hill. 4. The existing garage, which opens out onto the lane, is prominent within its immediate surroundings. It therefore follows that the increased height resulting from the proposal would also be prominent within the lane. That being said, even with the increased bulk and massing, the proposal would retain the intimate and discreet residential character of the lane. The proposal would not be any more prominent within the lane than the existing garage and would not result in a discordant addition. 5. The access lane is separated from Ness Drive by a large, grassed area and mature trees. As such, views towards Ness Dene from this road are limited. The Appeal Decision 6000669 2 increased height would be visible from Ness Drive; 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 Ness Drive. Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of Ness Drive. 6. Composite cladding is not a common material used in surrounding buildings. That being said, there is some variety in the type of external materials and given the limited visibility, the use of composite cladding is appropriate. 7. Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. It would comply with Policies S1, S2 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 (2014), which seek to ensure that developments are high quality and respond to the characteristics of the site, its wider context and the surrounding area. The Council has also identified that Policies DW2, DW3 and H11 of the Emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040 are relevant in this case, which broadly seek to achieve similar aims as the policies of the current Local Plan. I have limited evidence before me regarding the current status of the Local Plan; therefore, I give these policies limited weight. In any case, I have concluded that the development complies with the current Local Plan. Other Matters 8. Concerns have been raised regarding the use of the proposal as a separate dwelling. However, the is for a garden room home office, therefore its use as a separate dwelling is not part of the development before me. Similarly, I do not have any evidence before me to suggest that a Devon bank has been or would be altered as a result of the proposal. In any case, this matter does not form part of the proposal. Finally, there are concerns that the existing parking facilities within the garage are not utilised. Nevertheless, there is no evidence before me to suggest that there are restrictions in place to require that the garage can only be used for car parking and cannot be used for other domestic activities such as storage. Conditions 9. In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. 10. The Council has suggested a number of conditions, which I have considered. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the arboriculture statement dated 14 April 2025, including the tree protection plan is necessary owing to the proximity of nearby trees, in the interests of ensuring tree health. A condition is also necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the Surface Water Management Proposal dated 13 May 2025, to ensure surface water is suitably managed. Finally, the Council suggested a condition requiring the works to be carried out in accordance with the Bat and Bird Assessment dated 15 April 2025. I have imposed this condition which is necessary to ensure that, in the event that any bats are present on site, that appropriate measures are taken. Appeal Decision 6000669 3 Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions. Rebecca Dickson INSPECTOR Appeal Decision 6000669 4 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 24.54_PL_001, 24.54_PL_100 Rev A, 24.54_PL_101 Rev A, 24.54_PL_102 Rev A, and the Location Plan. 3) Development should be carried out in accordance with the recommendations as stated in the Bat and Bird Assessment by Orbis Ecology dated 15th April 2025. 4) Development should be carried out in accordance with the Arboriculture Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement carried out by Advanced Arboriculture dated 14th April 2025. 5) Development should be carried out in accordance with the Surface water Management Proposal by PMR Architecture dated 13th May 2025.