Appeal 3288949

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are:- a) Whether or not the proposed development would conserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Wiveliscombe Conservation Area. b) The effect of the proposed development on the setting of nearby listed buildings.

The appeal building is an end of terrace rendered property situated at the southern end of the [address]. The front of the property abuts a narrow concrete/shingle strip which in turn is set directly behind the footway. [address] lies within the Wiveliscombe Conservation Area (CA), and section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention should be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

The proposed development would result in a gabled porch being built over the front door. This would have a slate roof which would be supported on a green oak frame set on cast concrete saddle stones.

Whilst the windows of the shop at No 14 do project slightly forward of the front elevation, none of the other properties on the west side of the street have a protruding porch. The result of this is a uniform and coherent appearance to the front elevations of the properties.

The proposed porch would be incongruous in terms of both its design and materials, green oak not being a material that features elsewhere in the [address]. This cannot be construed as either conserving or enhancing the conservation area, and therefore harm would occur to the significance of the CA. I consider that this harm would be less than substantial.

Paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset then the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case there are no public benefits.

It follows that conflict would occur with policy CP8 of the [name]. This policy seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that the historic environment is conserved or enhanced and that development proposals that harm the interest of the historic environment are not permitted.

My attention has been drawn to two porches to properties on the east side of the street. One of these is set above stone steps and a stone plinth whilst the other is set back from the rear of the footway. Both however are constructed in materials and colours that complement the respective host properties. To my mind neither of these can be taken as a compelling precedent for allowing the present appeal.

I also note that appeal property previously had a porch. However, this would appear to have been a simple flat roof with supports more or less integral to the front elevation of the property, similar to several others in the [address]. Its previous existence does not therefore lead me to arrive at a different

Two properties on the east side of the [address] are [name] listed, these being Nos 15 and 17. I consider that any harm caused to the significance of the CA would also have a detrimental effect on the setting of these listed buildings, and this in itself would also cause conflict with policy CP8.

For the above reasons, and having taken into account all other matters raised, including the lack of objection from the parish council, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.