Balustrade and paving of existing flat roof for use as a balcony

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 September 2026 by J Evans BA(Hons) AssocRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6013225 9 Deer Park Close, Teignmouth, Devon TQ14 9HQ • 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 R Ager against the decision of Teignbridge District Council. • The application Ref is 26/00431/HOU. • The development proposed is described as Balustrade and paving of existing flat roof for use as a balcony. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Balustrade and paving of existing flat roof for use as a balcony in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 26/00431/HOU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following 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 the following approved plans: Site Location Plan (25-134-10); Block Plan (25-134-11); Ground Floor Plan (25-134-12 – A); Existing First Floor Plan (25-134-13 – A); Proposed First Floor Plan (25-134-14 – A); Existing Elevations (25-134-15); and Proposed Elevations (25-134-16). 3) Prior to the commencement in use of the balcony area hereby permitted, details of measures for the ongoing maintenance and safeguarding of existing hedging and fencing to the southern and western boundaries of the application site, and details of any new hard and soft landscape works, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Before the balcony area first comes into use, all hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. The hedging, fencing, and any agreed hard or soft landscape works on the southern and western boundaries of the application site shall thereafter be maintained and safeguarded in accordance with the agreed measures and shall not be removed without the Local Planning Authority’s prior written permission. Preliminary Matters 2. During the course of the appeal the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in August 2026. Both the Council and the Appellant were invited to submit comments, if appropriate, to the changes which form part of the revised Framework which have relevance to the appeal. Appeal Decision 6013225 2 3. Since the decision was made, Teignbridge District Council formally adopted the Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040 (the TLP) on 19 May 2026. This now forms the statutory development plan for the area. Policies from the then emerging TLP (DW2 and H12) were referred to in the decision notice. These policies relate to Development Principles and Residential Amenity and are broadly consistent with the previous development plan policies relating to Sustainable Development Criteria, Quality Development and Domestic Extensions, Ancillary Domestic Curtilage Buildings and Boundary Treatments listed on the decision notice (Policies S1, S2 and WE8 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013–2033). Further, the appellant has made reference to Policies DW2 and H12 of the TLP in their appeal statement. Therefore, I did not consider that it was necessary to consult any of the relevant bodies for comments in light of the adoption of the TLP as I am satisfied that no prejudice would occur from taking into account Policies DW2 and H12 of the TLP. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effects of the appeal proposal on the living conditions of existing and future neighbouring occupiers. Reasons 5. The appeal proposal seeks to utilise an existing flat roofed area to be accessed from the first floor of the appeal property (No.9) as an outdoor balcony area. This would be enclosed by a 1.1 metre high stainless steel post and rails with glazed infills, the plans indicate the glazing would be obscure glazed on the south-western side but would otherwise have clear glazing. 6. The Council and some of the neighbouring occupiers to No. 9 have raised concerns regarding the potential for overlooking and loss of privacy from the proposed balcony area to a number of nearby residential properties and associated garden areas, including No. 7 Deer Park Close to the south/south-east and Nos. 86, 88 and 90 Coombe Vale Road which are located on sloping ground below to the west/ south-west. 7. During my site visit it was made possible for me to enter onto the existing flat roofed area, whereby I could see the potential vantage points that would be possible from the proposal and to judge the relationships with surrounding properties. From this location, it was evident to me that visibility towards the rear gardens and properties to the west/ south-west (Nos. 86, 88 and 90 Coombe Vale Road) was restricted for the reasons set out below. 8. The proposed balcony area would be set back from the western/ south-western boundary of No.9’s garden, this would prevent direct overlooking into the gardens to the west/ south-west. These properties sit some distance below the level of No.9, with their gardens sloping down from the shared boundaries. In combination, these factors limit the ability to have an angular view into the garden areas of these properties. 9. There are also boundary enclosures between the proposed balcony and the garden areas below. These include fencing within No.9’s garden and established hedging in the garden areas of Nos. 88 and 90. With No.86, the boundary to the south- western corner of No.9’s garden was more open at the time of my site visit, however because of the angle between the balcony area an No 86’s garden, it was Appeal Decision 6013225 3 not possible to overlook any significant part of its rear garden, I could observe more of the rear garden of No.86 from the south-western corner of No.9’s garden itself. 10. Overall, it is a combination of the proposed balcony area’s setback position, intervening boundary screening and the topographical/ angular layout arrangements that exist, that would prevent any significant adverse effects upon the living conditions of the properties Nos. 86, 88 and 90 Coombe Vale Road. 11. Turning to No. 7, this property is located to the south/ south-east of No.9 and is positioned at the end of Deer Park Close. The building line of No.7 is set further to the south-east than that of No.9 and the property itself is positioned at a higher ground level, albeit the garden slopes away. There is a degree of separation between the proposed balcony and the boundary of No.7 as a result of the intervening garden area of No.9. There is an established hedgerow between the two properties and trees to either side. 12. During my site visit, I found it difficult to view into areas of the garden of No.7 from the proposed balcony area. It seems to me that due to the separation distances involved; the spatial and topographical relationships between the two properties and their garden areas; and the boundary enclosures that exist; the use of the flat roofed area as an outdoor balcony area would not unduly harm the living conditions of No.7. 13. Consequently, and taking into account all of the submissions before me, I am of the view that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its effects upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers to No. 9. Therefore, on this basis, the proposal would be in accordance with Policies DW2 and H12 of the TLP and Section 14 of the Framework which amongst other matters, seek development that is designed to minimise impacts upon the amenity and quite enjoyment of both existing and future users. Conditions 14. The standard time limit is required together with a condition listing the plans in the interests of certainty. The Council have sought a condition requiring that the eastern boundary of the roof terrace shall be fitted with and thereafter retain a privacy screen with a minimum height of 1.8 metres above the finished floor level of the terrace. However, for the reasons I have explained above, I am satisfied that the proposal would not lead to any significant effects upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the dwellings to the west/ south-west. Therefore, I do not consider such a condition would be necessary in this case. However, I do consider it is necessary to secure a condition to maintain and safeguard existing and any new boundary enclosures to the southern and western boundaries of the application site to ensure that the established boundary enclosures that exist or any new ones that are proposed, are satisfactorily retained and safeguarded to restrict the ability to look into neighbouring gardens. Conclusions 15. For all of the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, and subject to the specified conditions, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. J Evans INSPECTOR