Loft extension creating a bedroom and bathroom. 2no. dormer windows in roof a 2no. Velux windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 December 2025 by C Cooper-Young MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 January 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001049 3 Rose Villas, Main Road, Exminster, Devon EX68BT • 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 Mrs Alison Reed against the decision of Teignbridge District Council. • The application Ref 25/01140/HOU, dated 21 July 2025, was refused by notice dated 12 September 2025. • The development proposed is described on the application form as, ‘Loft extension creating a bedroom and bathroom. 2no. dormer windows in roof a 2no. Velux windows.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The appellant submitted revised plans during the course of the appeal process. The Planning Appeals – England, Procedural Guide advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. In these circumstances I find that the proposed revisions amount to a fundamental change to the proposal. In this regard and in the interests of fairness, I have therefore determined this appeal on the basis of the original drawings. 3. The emerging Teignbridge Local Plan (TLP) 2020-2040 has now been through examination and is subject to modifications prior to formal adoption. As it is at an advanced stage it can be given greater weight. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. Reasons 5. The appeal site is a two-storey end of terrace house constructed of red brick and grey slate roof tiles. No 3 Rose Villas sits adjacent to both the Exminster Post Office and the Exminster Methodist Church. The site lies within a suburban predominantly residential area, characterised by an eclectic mix of building styles varying greatly in size, form, spacing and appearance. 6. The appellant has directed me to examples of front and rear dormers in the locality and I observed a number of these during my site visit. As I am unaware of the particular planning history for these sites I have based the decision on my own observations. While dormers are not uncommon within the street scene, including Appeal Decision 6001049 2 flat roof dormers, these are generally smaller than the proposal and I therefore find that these examples add little weight in favour of the matter before me. 7. The addition of two rooflights to the front roof space would result in only minimal visual changes to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Moreover, as the street scene is varied, these changes would not be out of keeping, or jar, with the surrounding roof forms. 8. However, the proposed L-shaped dormer at the rear of the property, by way of its large and boxy form, would result in a feature which is discordant with the host dwelling, harming its proportions and appearance. This is further exacerbated by the proposed cladding boards which fail to harmonise with the built form of the host dwelling. 9. Whilst to the rear of the dwelling, the proposal would be clearly visible in views from the street scene along Main Road. In Dryfield, views of the proposal between properties as well as from the rear gardens of surrounding dwellings, would also affect the appreciation of the character and appearance of the dwelling. The rooflights to the proposed dormer would be visibly prominent above the roof ridge line and appear in wider views along the street scene, further eroding the character of the host dwelling and the area. 10. The bulk, form and design of the proposed rear dormer would be an incongruous addition to the dwelling and would be harmful to its character and appearance. For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. 11. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies S1, S2 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033, Policies DW2 and H11 of the emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040, and Policy EXM3 of the Exminster Neighbourhood Plan 2015 which, amongst other things, requires development to harmonise with existing built form and character. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. C Cooper-Young INSPECTOR