Appeal 3328033

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the formation of off-road parking space with dropped kerb; enclosing of existing porch canopy with re-configured entrance steps at [site address] , Paignton, Devon, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/2023/0549, dated 23 June 2023, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule to this decision.

Work on the project commenced last year but ceased. The appellant, in effect, wishes to complete the works in accordance with the submitted plans. I shall proceed on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

[address] is relatively lengthy and fairly steep. Travelling uphill from its junction with [address] I saw that the dwellings on the right hand side of the road were generally level with the carriageway. The former front gardens of most of the dwellings on this side were used for car parking.

On the other side of [address], for most of its length to its junction with [address] (B30360), dwellings were generally elevated above the carriageway. Most dwellings on this side of the road had retained their front gardens. Nevertheless, I saw that several parking spaces had been formed at the front of houses, and in one or two cases, garages had been erected in front gardens.

A car parking space has been formed at the appeal site but the development as a whole is incomplete. The Council says in the officer report that the ‘..entire front garden has been removed..’ but I saw that was not the case. A small area of lawn would remain between the car space and the dwelling’s front elevation, and a narrow strip would be retained to the side, for planting.

A similar car space has been formed next door. The Council says that this did not receive planning permission, and ‘..is considered to be a poor addition to the street scene’. However, it appears to have been in place since 2009 and there is no evidence before me that the Council contemplated enforcement action. The next-door car space has therefore become an established element in the street scene.

The Council says that the car parking space would be a ‘stark, sterile development’ being ‘of significant detriment to the character and appearance of the street scene’ setting ‘an unwanted precedent’. However, as already described, the street displays many examples of similar development on both sides of the road. What has taken place is not therefore uncharacteristic of the street scene. With appropriate mitigation the development, in my view, would not look out of place in its visual context.

I find the other works, including the porch and steps, to be unobjectionable.

I therefore conclude that the development, when complete, would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Accordingly, no conflict arises with those provisions of policies DE1 and DE5 of the Torbay Local Plan or policy PNP1 of the Paignton Neighbourhood Plan directed to ensuring that development should be well designed to be in keeping with their surroundings, having no adverse effects on local character.

In the interests of visual amenity, I shall impose the Council’s suggested condition in respect of external materials. It is also necessary, in the interests of certainty, that the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.

I shall impose an additional condition, in the interests of amenity, since I find the landscaping scheme proposed to be unimaginative and impractical, and would not provide the required degree of mitigation.

I have noted the references to other development plan policies but those to which I have referred are considered the most relevant having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. I have also taken account of the references to the National Planning Policy Framework.

All other matters raised in the representations have been considered but none outweigh those considerations that led me to my conclusions.