Appeal 3364666

The appeal is dismissed.

The description in the heading above is taken directly from the application form, as I have no record of an alternative being agreed between the parties. The decision notice describes the development as front and rear extensions, alterations with associated landscaping and installation of driveway which accurately reflects the development proposed.

On 22 November 2023, all designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in England and Wales became “National Landscapes”. The site is within the South Devon National Landscape (SDNL) which was formerly the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the AONB).

The main issue is the effect of the proposed two storey rear extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area including the SDNL.

[address] is a cul de sac consisting of mainly detached bungalows of similar designs with simple pitched roofs and gables. Several of the properties have been altered since their original construction and where flat roof extensions are visible from the street they are only single storey.

The proposal seeks to renovate the property with several additions including a two-storey flat roof extension to the rear. The flat roof would extend directly from the ridge and project a significant distance beyond the rear elevation of the property. Flat roof extensions of this type are not characteristic of the property or the surrounding area. Further to this the depth of the extension would increase the overall massing of the building in a manner which would appear unbalanced.

Due to the topography, views of the rear extension would be visible from [address] as well as by users of the lane to the side of the property. Furthermore, due to the elevated position the rear of the property is also visible from the lane running alongside the [name] and from the rear of the properties on this road.

It is noted that other properties in the area have been altered and extended, in some cases with large extensions with variations in style. However, from what I observed on my site visit the design of these extensions had roof forms consistent with others in the area, rather than having large flat roof elements.

The design of the proposed rear extension would follow the theme of the other alterations proposed. However, its design, scale and massing would result in harm to the appearance of the property and the surrounding area. It is not considered to be a locally distinctive design and it does not integrate, respect, or complement the character of the area and would therefore be contrary to Policies DEV20 and DEV21 of the Plymouth and South West Joint Local Plan (2014-2034) (JLP).

With regard to National Landscapes and under Section 245 ([name]) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 relevant authorities must ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of [name]. Further to this Policy DEV25 of the JLP gives the highest degree of protection to the AONB (now the SDNL). The policy requires development proposals to be designed to prevent the addition of incongruous features and to maintain an area’s distinctive sense of place. Due to the concerns with regard to the scale and design of the proposal it would result in a harmful visual impact on the area. Whilst this impact would be fairly localised it would still affect the SDNL and be contrary to Policy DEV25 of the JLP.

As a result, for the reasons above, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the building and would not conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the SDNL. As such, it would not comply with Policies DEV20, DEV21 and DEV25 of the JLP. Those policies seek development within the SDNL to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty, including the distinctive landscape character.

There are several listed buildings near to the appeal site. Mindful of my duty set out in s66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving their setting. The closest listed properties are arranged as a terrace which includes the [name]. These properties positively contribute to the character of the area. Their significance stems from the quality of their architectural and artistic features, age, form, historic fabric, and group value. Their special interest/significance is experienced mainly within their immediate contexts, in views along the street. The views of the proposed extension would be seen within the context of the housing development in which they would be sited. Given the location and extent of the proposed development, I consider that it would preserve the settings of these listed buildings and the contributions these make to their significance. I note that the Council has raised no concerns in this regard either.

In respect of the Stokenham Conservation Area, which is adjacent to the appeal site, the Council has not identified any harm in this regard. The appellant suggests that the proposals would provide a contemporary contrast which will seek to highlight the historical features of the conservation area. For the reasons given above, I do not find this to be the case.

The renovation of the property, excluding the rear extension, will result in some improvements to the appearance of the property along with improved energy efficiency. However, these benefits do not outweigh the harm identified.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole, and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given the appeal is dismissed.