Retention of replacement flat roofs on garages with a dual pitched roof
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 5 November 2025
by D Wilson BSc (Hons) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 17 November 2025
Appeal Ref: 6000609
17 Grove Crescent, Teignmouth, Devon TQ14 9HP
• 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 Richard Crompton against the decision of Teignbridge District Council
South Devon.
• The application Ref is 25/00572/HOU.
• The development proposed is retention of replacement flat roofs on garages with a dual pitched roof.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for retention of
replacement flat roofs on garages with a dual pitched roof at 17 Grove Crescent,
Teignmouth, Devon TQ14 9HP in accordance with the terms of the application,
Ref 25/00572/HOU and the plans submitted with it reference 17 Grove Crescent
TQRQM25087204604983, Site Plan 17 Grove Crescent TQRQM25090114156129
and Drawing V. 002 “as is” Elevations & Overhead.
Preliminary Matters
2. At the time of my site visit, I saw that the development had been completed, and I
have dealt with the appeal on that basis.
3. I have used the Council’s description of development in the banner heading above,
on the basis that it concisely describes the development.
Main Issue
4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the
occupiers of No 7 Gloucester Road with regard to outlook.
Reasons
5. The appeal site relates to a pair of detached garages with a dual pitched roof
which are associated with the dwelling at No 17 Grove Crescent but are separated
by a privately owned path which gives access to the rear of the properties. The
appeal site is located within a dense residential area with many houses being
terraced within the immediate and wider area.
Appeal Decision 6000609
2
6. The garage is located close to No 7 Gloucester Road which is a two-storey
dwelling and a window on the first floor faces towards the development. There is
no dispute between the parties that this window is shown as serving a bedroom,
albeit I note the appellant’s concern over the small size of the room. The Council
did not undertake a visit to No 7, however based their assessment on sales
particulars for the property, which illustrate that the window serves a small
bedroom within this property.
7. The appellant suggests that the window was depicted as being much larger than it
is and that the position differs from the sales particulars that were considered by
the Council. I am mindful from site observations that the size of the window is
smaller, and its location does differ from that shown on the sales particulars
considered by the Council and instead serves a narrow corridor that leads to the
bedroom.
8. I acknowledge that the garage is located close to this first-floor window, however,
the small size of the window combined with it predominantly serving a narrow
corridor I consider that opportunities for outlook would be limited to passing
glances. This, combined with the dense residential character of the area would
mean that the development is not overbearing within this context for the occupiers
of No 7.
9. I therefore conclude that the development does not harm the living conditions of
the occupiers of No 7 Gloucester Road with regard to outlook. I find no conflict with
Policies S1 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 Adopted 6th May
2014. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development protects the
living conditions of neighbours.
Other Matter
10. The Council have referenced Policy H12 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040
Main Modifications Consultation 2024 (Emerging Plan). This Emerging Plan has
been submitted for public examination, however, due to the unknown extent of any
unresolved objections I only afford limited weight to the conflict with this Policy.
Conclusion
11. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.
D Wilson
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.