Appeal 3325290

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of the development from the decision notice as I consider this better reflects the proposal before me.

The application form and the appeal form refer to the appeal address as Nos. 14 & 15 [site address] , whereas the decision notice refers to Nos. 14 & 15 The Homeyards. I have used the address as shown on the application form and the appeal form to describe the appeal site.

The main issue in this case is the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area; including the Shaldon Conservation Area (the CA).

Nos. 14 & 15 [site address] form part of a small linear terrace of C20 two storey dwellings, which with their associated front gardens are situated on elevated ground to a narrow highway to the north.

The properties of Nos. 14 and 15 themselves, fall outside of the CA, however the front boundary capturing Nos. 12 to 16 falls within the southern edge of the CA boundary.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as amended, requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. These statutory requirements are reinforced through Policy EN5 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 (the LP). Appeal Decision: APP/P1133/D/23/3325290

Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (the Framework) outlines that heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance. It goes onto explain that these assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.

I am also aware of the Shaldon Conservation Area Character Appraisal (the CAA) and the Shaldon Conservation Area Management Plan (the CAMP). These documents do not form part of the development plan, but were subject to public consultation and I considered them to be useful and material documents in the appraisal of the appeal proposals.

The CAMP, amongst other matters, explains that a major threat towards achieving conservation aims is: The loss of curtilage features such as walls, railings and gate piers which form an integral part of a building’s character and setting. The impact is doubly harmful (to both the building’s setting and the street picture as a whole) when the garden area exposed is subsequently resurfaced to create a hardstanding for parked vehicles, thus destroying the sense of enclosure that formerly prevailed.

The appeal proposals seek to excavate the garden back from the highway to provide for a levelled hard surfaced area for off road parking areas to serve each property.

During my site visit I noted that the original boundary wall to the highway had in part collapsed, which I understand was as a result of heavy rainfall in 2022. However, the overall enclosing nature and associated distinctive characteristics remain intact. This represents an attractive feature that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area and that of the CA. These positive characteristics would be removed as a result of the appeal proposals.

In reaching my decision, I acknowledge there are front parking areas to other properties forming part of the wider area, these are visually and in character terms separated from the appeal site by intervening built form, and nonetheless, these parking areas are outside of the CA. The properties with parking areas further up the hill to the east of the appeal site are also outside of the CA. I also have no information as to when these parking areas were created and the justifications for such in any case. As a consequence, these existing parking areas have little bearing on my consideration of the proposals.

I have also taken account that parking in the area is difficult, as the availability of spaces is limited. However, the resultant benefits of providing additional off-road parking spaces would not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

As a result, the appeal proposals would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA, thereby conflicting with policy EN5 of the LP, paragraph 189 of the Framework and the guidance in the CAA and the CAMP.