Appeal 6000800

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of existing treble garage into a residential dwelling with allocated parking and amenity area at [site address] , Redruth, Cornwall [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/00932, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The post code of the site address appears to be incorrect on the application form. I have therefore used the post code as provided on the Council’s decision notice and the appellant’s appeal form.

The Redruth Neighbourhood Development Plan became ‘made’ in December

I have therefore considered the relevant policies contained within the finalised version as part of my decision making process.

The main issues are: (i) whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Redruth Town Centre Conservation Area, and its effect upon the Outstanding Universal Value of the Camborne and Redruth Mining District section of the wider Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site; and (ii) the effect of the proposed parking arrangements on highway safety.

The appeal site is located within the Redruth Town Centre Conservation Area. From the evidence before me, and from what I saw when I visited the site, the significance of the Conservation Area, in so far as it is relevant to this appeal, is derived from the value of the development of Redruth in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the architectural styles and tastes of the time. It has an aesthetic value due to the appearance of the buildings that comprise the Conservation Area. Within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, these include terraced or semi-detached stone-built dwellings within a fairly regimented grid like formation. Many of the homes have generously sized, elongated rear gardens. The Council has noted that the host dwelling, No. [address], is itself identified as a ‘significant building’ within a document entitled the [name] and Plain-An-Gwarry (2002), while the overall plot is described as a ‘surviving historical component’.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention is paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. In this instance, the appeal site comprises a triple garage and is located adjacent to the rear garden of [address].

The proposed development would involve the conversion of the garage to form a single dwelling. Importantly, the approved plans demonstrate that the external changes needed to facilitate the conversion would be relatively minor, including removing the garage doors and installing windows and a front door. As such, I find that the overall visual impact of the building would remain largely unchanged. I acknowledge that large rear gardens form part of the character of the area. The proposed development would divide the existing garden space between the host property at No. 78 and the new dwelling. However, during my site visit it was clear that this partition had already occurred and that this divide was not apparent from the street. In essence therefore, from the public realm, the overall perception of a larger garden, and therefore the understanding of the historic urban grain of the immediate area, still remains.

The visual appearance of the development is of course only one aspect to consider. It is also important to analyse whether the proposed change of use would alter the way in which the local area is experienced or perceived. In this instance, given the small-scale nature of the scheme, I am satisfied that the use of the building as a residential dwelling would not change the character of the area to such an extent so as to result in harm. I note that the Council has concerns that allowing this appeal could set a precedent for further similar proposals in the area. However, I must assess the scheme on its individual merits. Moreover, having explored the immediate vicinity during my site visit, it was not clear to me that there would be many other opportunities to convert modern garage buildings to form dwellings without the need for significant external modifications. On that basis, the potential to set a precedent is not a determinative feature of this appeal.

As a result, it is clear that the proposed development would have a neutral effect and would therefore not result in harm to the significance of the Conservation Area. The site is also located within the Camborne and Redruth Mining District section of the wider Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site. For the purposes of this appeal, the relevant aspects of the Outstanding Universal Value of this designation, and therefore its significance, is associated with the historic mining activities of the area, and the layout and form of residential development within the wider surroundings. For the reasons already given, the lack of harm that I have found in relation to the Conservation Area would also extend to the Outstanding Universal Value and significance of the World Heritage Site.

As a result of these considerations, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area, including the significance of the Redruth Town Centre Conservation Area or the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site. It would therefore conform with Policies 1, 2 and 12 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 (the LP), Policies DC1, H1 and H2 of the Redruth Neighbourhood Development Plan 2020 – 2030 (the NP) and Policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023 (the CEDPD). Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves character and appearance, including the significance of designated

With regards to LP Policy 24, the proposal would preserve the significance of heritage assets. The precise wording suggests that, in relation to the World Heritage Site, opportunities to enhance or better reveal its significance should be taken where the effect of the development would be neutral. In this instance, given that the proposal would involve the conversion of a building, I do not consider that there are any notable opportunities to enhance significance and so I am satisfied that there is no conflict with this detailed policy wording.

The scheme would also conform with Policies P3, C2 and C9 of the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site Management Plan 2020 – 2025, as well as paragraphs 3.1.2 [name] (the CDG), all of which have similar aims to the policies described above.

I note that there is some conflict with the precise wording of paragraph 3.2.1 of the CDG on the basis that the proposed development would not necessarily enhance local character and the historic context. However, this is only guidance, and I am satisfied that the lack of harm that I have identified is sufficient to conform with the overall thrust of the key policies that I have identified.

The Council’s Travel Plan and [name] document, 2023 (the TPPS) sets out that, for new dwellings in highly accessible locations, one parking space per unit is expected. The Council is satisfied that the appeal site is located within a highly accessible location. Based on the proximity of the site to Redruth town centre, I can see no reason to disagree with that assessment.

I note that the appellant has set out that the existing garage is not available for the occupiers of No. 78 to use. While that might be the case, it seems from the evidence before me that the host dwelling and garage building are still linked together for planning purposes. As such, the conversion of the garage building would result in the loss of off-street spaces associated with No. 78. The approved plans seek to show that there would be sufficient space to the front of the proposed dwelling to park a vehicle. Based on what I saw during my site visit, I have my doubts that most cars, including larger SUV designs, would fit without blocking the access lane to other garages. If that were the case, when considering the proposal against the expected standards in the TPPS, there would be a deficit of two parking spaces overall.

I note that the Council has set out that the immediate area experiences parking stress. This is a view that is also shared by third parties. There seems to be little in the way of substantive evidence in this regard, and while only a snapshot in time, there was an abundance of unrestricted on-street parking in the wider area during my site visit. However, even if I were to agree that there is parking stress on [address], [site address] and the wider surrounds, the potential for harm associated with two displaced vehicles would be very limited. Moreover, it is clear that the occupiers of the host dwelling and proposed dwelling would not necessarily need access to a private vehicle given the range of services and facilities nearby.

Nevertheless, the lack of sufficient car parking space would conflict with NP Policy HS3 and [name] T1 and T2. Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development includes sufficient parking provision. The proposal would also conflict with the relevant aspects of the TPPS and the CDG which have similar aims.

The site is within close proximity to the Fal and Helford Special Area of Conservation (the SAC). This protected area supports an important range of natural features including saltmarsh, intertidal mudflats, sandbanks and reefs. The Conservation Objectives for the site are to ensure that its integrity is maintained or restored as appropriate, and to ensure that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of its qualifying features.

The designated site is an important recreational and economic resource. It is well frequented by the public and it is very possible that occupants of the proposed dwellings would visit the site. It is necessary for me, as the competent authority, to conduct an Appropriate Assessment in relation to the effect of the development on the integrity of the protected site.

The evidence before me is clear that the proposal, particularly when combined with other development in the area, would have a likely significant effect on the protected sites due to an increased disturbance through recreational activity. The parties have agreed the provision of a financial sum in accordance with the Council’s European Sites Mitigation SPD, which can be put towards infrastructure or non-infrastructure projects. This sum has been secured through a Section 111 agreement. The SPD has been prepared with the agreement of Natural England. Natural England also responded to the original application by confirming that they did not object to the proposal subject to the mitigation being secured.

Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the contribution would sufficiently mitigate the level of harm likely to be caused by the development and would be pursuant to the Council’s adopted strategies. I therefore find that the proposal would not result in an adverse effect on the integrity of the designated site.

I have had regard to the Council’s suggested list of conditions and the appellant’s response as contained within their final comments. I have shortened the wording of certain conditions in the interests of brevity. However, the additional detail provided by the Council may be a useful guide for the appellant where certain details need to be submitted and approved.

I have imposed conditions to identify the relevant timescales and plans in the interests of certainty. Further conditions are necessary in relation to contamination to make sure the site is safe for residential use. These include pre-commencement conditions which are required to make sure the site is safe prior to the start of works. Notwithstanding my concerns about the usability of the proposed parking space, it is likely to be suitable for smaller vehicles and so it is necessary to secure that space to help minimise the effect of the lack of parking where possible. I have not found it necessary to impose a condition regarding surface water on the basis that the scope of the proposed works would not increase the risk of flooding.

It is not in dispute that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable sites for housing. Indeed, at just 3.9 years the current shortfall is significant, and I have no evidence before me to suggest that this position is likely to improve in the short-term. In such circumstances, Paragraph 11d and footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) require that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of a single new home that would assist in meeting need in the area, and provide economic benefits associated with the proposed works and future support for local facilities. Despite the shortfall in housing land supply, the benefits of the proposal would be limited.

[name] have not found harm in relation to character and appearance and heritage matters, I have concluded that there would be a very narrow conflict with the wording of LP Policy 24. I have also found that there is some potential for harm in relation to parking and therefore highway safety. As such, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole.

The support for the principle of development within the Framework is countered by the importance it places on the provision of development that does not impact upon highway safety. However, I have already noted that, as a result of the number of vehicles involved, the potential harm would be very limited. There would also be no adverse effects associated with the lack of enhancement to the significance of heritage assets which forms part of paragraph 219 of the Framework. As a result, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The development therefore represents sustainable development in accordance with the Framework.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole. However, there are material considerations, notably the provisions of the Framework, that indicate that the decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Block and [name] (1490.01) Proposed Block Plan (1490.04) [name] (1490.05) and [name] (1490.06).

No development, other than demolition of any buildings or structures, shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

No development shall take place where, following the risk assessment, land affected by contamination is found which poses risks identified as unacceptable in the risk assessment, until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The remediation scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and upon completion, a verification report by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is occupied.

Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the approved development that was not previously identified shall be reported in writing immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended and a risk assessment carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, remediation and verification schemes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These approved schemes shall be carried out before the development is resumed.

Before any of the development hereby permitted is brought into use, a parking area shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with approved drawing no.1490.04, and the said areas shall not thereafter be obstructed or used for any other purpose.