Appeal 6000596

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA), including a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

The significance of the CA derives, in part, from its historic rural village form, its enclosed and intimate lanes and the prevalence of traditional stone boundary walls constructed of local limestone, sandstone and shale. These walls are repeatedly identified in both the Conservation Area Appraisal (the Appraisal) and the Conservation Area Management Plan (the Management Plan) as defining features of the settlement.

The Appraisal describes these walls as “perhaps the most distinctive structures in the village”, noting that they “enclose much of the streetscape” and “tend to upstage what is behind them”. Their height, scale and traditional construction contribute strongly to the village’s sense of enclosure, its historic grain and its visual coherence. The Management Plan identifies the loss or alteration of such walls as a specific threat to the CA’s character.

The appeal site lies within, but close to the edge of, the CA. However, the Appraisal makes clear that the enclosing stone walls are important throughout the settlement, including at its approaches. Their contribution to the CA’s significance does not diminish at its boundaries.

[site address] is identified by the Council as a NDHA. The appellants do not dispute this. Based on the evidence before me, including historic mapping and the building’s traditional form, I see no reason to reach a different view.

The appellants emphasise that the wall is already “punctured” by an existing opening and that the proposal affects less than 7% of its length. I acknowledge that a pedestrian-scale opening is present. However, the Appraisal highlights that the significance of these walls derives not only from their materiality but also from the sense of enclosure created by their scale. A narrow pedestrian opening does not materially diminish this enclosure in the way a vehicular-sized opening would.

The proposal would enlarge the existing opening to create vehicular access. This would introduce a substantially wider gap in a historic wall that currently reads as a strong, enclosing boundary along [site address] . The increased width would noticeably reduce the wall’s visual presence and its ability to frame and contain the lane.

The appellants state that the opening is not visible until one is adjacent to the property. Whilst this may be correct, the CA derives significance from the cumulative experience of its enclosed lanes at close quarters. The fact that the wall is experienced at short range reinforces, rather than reduces, the importance of maintaining its scale and enclosing qualities. A wider opening would be readily perceived by pedestrians and drivers passing the site.

The reuse of stone, use of lime mortar and engagement of a local stonemason are positive design intentions. However, these measures do not mitigate the fundamental impact of creating a materially larger opening. The proposal is described as “conservation-led”, but the primary heritage impact arises from the scale of the intervention rather than from construction detailing. Conditions could not overcome this harm.

[site address] derives its modest heritage significance primarily from its age, traditional form and depiction on historic mapping. The boundary wall contributes to the character of the lane but does not form a defining element of the NDHA’s setting. The dwelling would continue to be experienced in much the same way from within the site, and its historic character would remain appreciable. I therefore find no harm to the significance or setting of the NDHA.

I have found that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA. In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), this harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellants identify a range of benefits, including reduced on-street parking pressure, reduced manoeuvring and idling, improved visibility, improved pedestrian safety and the ability to install an EV charger. Local support and the Parish Council’s endorsement are also cited.

I acknowledge the strength of local support and the lived experience of residents who report congestion and parking difficulties along [site address] and [address]. However, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the proposal would materially reduce parking pressure or congestion for the wider community. The release of two on-street spaces is asserted but not substantiated, and the extent to which these spaces would remain available during peak visitor periods is uncertain.

Similarly, there is nothing before me to demonstrate that visibility or pedestrian safety would be materially improved. Although the appellants refer to improved sightlines, the information provided does not substantiate that these effects would extend beyond the appeal property or result in a meaningful wider benefit.

The ability to install an EV charger is a positive environmental intention. However, the benefit would accrue primarily to the occupiers of the appeal property. In the context of the statutory duty to give great weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets, this benefit carries limited weight.

The reuse of stone, retention of hedging and planting of native species are commendable but relate to design quality rather than public benefit. Local support is a material consideration, but it cannot override the statutory duty under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The harm identified is at the lower to moderate end of the spectrum due to the small scale of the intervention. However, the Framework requires that great weight be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, irrespective of the degree of harm.

The public benefits advanced by the appellants are limited in scale, uncertain in effect and largely private in nature. They are not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the CA.

The appellants refer to other openings created within the village and to an appeal decision in Torbay. I have reviewed the references provided. However, I have limited information on the heritage context, policy background or detailed circumstances of those cases. The existence of other openings does not, in itself, justify further erosion of the CA’s defining characteristics. Each case must be determined on its own merits, and the evidence before me does not demonstrate that those examples are directly comparable.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policy DEV21 of the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014 – 2034, which expects proposals to be heritage-led, to respect local character and distinctiveness, and to avoid harm to designated and non-designated heritage assets wherever possible. Where harm cannot be avoided, it must be robustly justified, minimised and weighed against public benefits in line with national policy.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.