Appeal 6000639

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development above and in the application form includes wording that is not an act of development, as ‘curtilage’ does not relate to a use of land. Additionally, it is not for me to define what is or is not curtilage. It is however clear from the evidence that the appellants wish, in part, to change the use of the land for residential purposes, and I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character or appearance of the Lydford Conservation Area (CA) and the Dartmoor National Park.

The overall purpose of the Dartmoor Local Plan (LP) is set out in Strategic Policy (SP)1.1 which seeks to protect the National Park’s special qualities, whilst meeting the needs of its communities. All development should seek to further its statutory purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area and promoting opportunities of the understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities by the public. It is necessary to seek to further these purposes in decision making. Furthermore, in such areas, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) attaches great weight to conserving and enhancing natural beauty.

The appeal site is within the CA where there is a statutory duty to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area; and where great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The CA is characterised by its collection of modest scaled historic buildings found on narrow streets. A focal point is the castle and its surrounding defences dating to the 10th century. Additionally, pastoral fields surround much of the small village with the LP recognising that the domestication of such landscapes can be harmful to the National Park’s character. These features contribute towards its significance. There are some modern buildings nearby which may not contribute to the significance of the CA in the same way, though these are not closely associated with the appeal site and its surroundings.

In that context, the appeal site is located beyond the clearly defined garden boundaries of a row of historic properties. Although some of these have been altered, this takes nothing away from the strong distinction between the urban and rural environment. With that in mind, the appeal site forms part of an aforementioned pastoral field that makes a positive contribution to the CA’s significance. Beyond this, views of the dramatic moorland can be appreciated. Despite adjoining the host property and neighbouring garden boundary walls, its undeveloped nature and close open links with a wider field reinforce the sense of rurality here. While fairly well screened from broader public view points, it remains distinctly different from residential gardens and their associated outbuildings.

The current use of the appeal site and support in the English National Parks and the Broads UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 for modern farming practices is noted. However, at significant variance from this, the proposal is for residential purposes. This includes a building that is intended to be used for the storage of items such as a motor car, bikes and household equipment. The comings and goings, together with other likely domestic landscaping or paraphernalia would uncharacteristically, and thus, harmfully intensify the use of this part of the CA and the part of the National Park it lies within. I attach great weight to this harm, which would fail to further the statutory purposes of the National Park.

Furthermore, having paid regard to the submitted extract from the Authority’s Design Guide, even with the sloping topography and traditional finish to the building, the scheme, as a whole, would do little to conserve or enhance the character or appearance of the host property as required by LP Policy 3.7.

The development would cause less than substantial harm to the CA’s significance as a designated heritage asset due to its relatively small scale. Paragraph 215 of the Framework explains that in such circumstances, it is necessary to balance the harm against the public benefits of the development. The benefits advanced in support of this proposal are focussed on the private interests of the appellants. These are not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified above.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and the Dartmoor National Park. Consequently, the development would be in conflict with [name] 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, and 2.7; and Policy 3.7, which, together in this respect seek to conserve and enhance the setting, character and local distinctiveness of designated heritage assets, creating a strong sense of place.

While the support of the Parish Council is acknowledged, this would not be a reason in itself to allow inappropriate development.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says development should be in accordance with the development plan ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’, and this is reaffirmed in the Framework. In this respect, I acknowledge the case law cited by the appellants which emphasises that the development plan should be considered as a whole.

For the reasons above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no considerations individually or cumulatively that outweigh this. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.