Appeal 3325879

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on a) the setting of a listed building; b) the character and appearance of the locality; and c) living conditions for on-site residents.

The appeal property is a detached two storey dwelling at the northern end of a row of 3 similar homes which have recently been constructed in this rural location fronting the A3124. The dwellings stem from a planning history which allowed new-build in lieu of ‘fall-back’ ‘Class Q’ consent. The dwellings are served by a shared driveway parallel to the main road with landscape alongside this and so are set someway off the main road edge. The proposal is for a double car port, timber sided and rear, with slate pitched roof, planned forward of the dwelling towards the northern corner of the plot.

The Council underlines that there are a pair of semi-detached dwellings to the south of the site which are [name] listed, with detached [name] listed property (including garden walls) further to the south again (Fourways), with another [name] listing ([name]) to the south of Fourways. It is of the view that the appeal proposal would lead to a detrimental impact on the setting of these listed buildings.

There is a duty imposed by Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requiring decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building.

I have carefully considered this matter. In my opinion the listed buildings are too far removed from the scheme to have any real inter-connection; there is too much intervening landscape, hard-surfacing and built form to argue any meaningful visual link-up; and the northern end of this row of new homes has no obvious historic connection to any of the listed buildings.

Given the above, I conclude that the proposal would not conflict with the aims of S66(1) of the Act. Similarly, it would not be contrary to Policies DEV20 and DEV21 of the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan (LP) which, taken together and amongst other matters, seek to protect historic environments and contexts.

The three dwellings are substantial and in my opinion with their layout and elevations not necessarily fully reflective of this rural location but almost suburban in form. However, there is some design merit and they are not overly intrusive in the wider scene or markedly jarring to passers-by not least due to their set back off the main road which understandably appears to have been a key layout determinant. I consider that this set-back of built structures should remain undiminished. Regrettably the planned car port would be intrusive into the scene due to proximity to the road, would lead to an overly-developed appearance for the plot, and would impinge upon the landscape qualities and countryside attributes of this location. The car port would be simply out of place.

[name] SPT1, TTV26, TTV29 and DEV23 are particularly relevant to this main issue. Taken together and amongst other matters they seek sustainable development which would protect the countryside, respect a site’s context and conserve or enhance landscape character. In all the circumstances I conclude that the appeal proposal would run contrary to these policies. Living conditions 10.The Council is concerned that the appeal proposal would result in the loss of garden amenity space that would be enjoyed by the occupants of the host property. 11.However, I am not convinced by this argument. In my opinion the remaining garden area is suitably sized for normal family use and reasonable dwelling-surrounding planting; the scheme would use-up relatively little open area. In contrast to the well-positioned south west facing main rear garden the area in question is unhelpfully orientated for amenity use and would also be subject to maximum road noise. In my opinion the footprint area of the proposed car port would add little to the ‘enjoyment’ of the on-site occupants. 12.[name] TTV29 and DEV1 particularly highlight the need to protect residential amenity. On the specific main issue of living conditions, I conclude that there would be no conflict with these policies, or any other less directly relevant LP policies cited by the Council.