Appeal 6001165

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

In the banner heading above, I have used the description of development to reflect that as provided within the Council’s decision notice, as it more concisely describes the development.

I noted on my site visit that a wooden shed similar to that proposed already existed at the appeal site. Nonetheless, I have based my considerations on the plans submitted with the proposal.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the St Buryan Conservation Area (the CA). • The effect of the proposed development on the character and distinctive landscape qualities of the St Buryan Area of [name] (the AGLV) and the Penwith Heritage Coast (the Heritage Coast).

The St Buryan Conservation Area Statement (CAS) identifies the centre of [name] as possessing a distinctive and historically important medieval, star‐shaped street pattern, focussed upon and visually dominated by the Church of [name]. The village core is predominantly formed of 18th and 19th century buildings, many replacing earlier cob and granite built thatched cottages. The continued presence of traditional granite walling, slate‐roof coverings and timber sash windows makes a substantial and positive contribution to the historic character and appearance of the settlement. Residential terraces are modest and simply detailed, and garden plots are typically enclosed by traditional stone boundary walls, which play an integral role in defining the village’s distinctive grain.

The wider settlement displays an informal and organically evolved layout, with footpaths and short lanes passing across the fronts, sides and rears of buildings and their gardens. Roadside pavements are limited, resulting in a strong visual continuity between the public realm and private garden spaces, often demarcated only by traditional stone walls. The prevailing use of historic materials, including stone, slate and painted timber for windows and doors, further reinforces the area’s established character. Existing garden walls, particularly those fronting the highway, are clearly identified as features of notable importance within the conservation area and form a valued component of its overall significance. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.

The appeal site is a simple two-storey terraced residential dwelling located along [address] in [name]. It is located close to the centre of the village and to the church, finding itself on one of the star shaped limbs from the church. It has a front garden with external perimeter stone wall that demarcates the boundary between private residential garden and the highway. The terrace mostly displays traditional granite boundary walling, slate‐roof coverings, and timber sash windows, as described in the CAS, and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. The appeal building is located at the front of the garden, adjacent to the wall. The site lies within the CA, AGLV, and the Heritage Coast.

The construction of a timber shed to the very front of the garden would be a visually prominent and uncharacteristic feature of the terrace and the surrounding area. Despite an amount of separation, the proposal would harmfully dominate the stone boundary wall and detract attention away from the pleasant and positive effect of the simple row of terraces and the streetscape which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA. I am directed towards the proposal to screen the shed with planting; however, I have not been supplied with any detail of any such landscaping mitigations. Regardless, I am unconvinced that screening would mitigate the harm. Consequently, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

Given the scale and location of the proposed development, I consider it would lead to a slight erosion of the significance of the CA and result in minor harm. The harm to the significance of the CA would be less than substantial in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) and on the lower end of the scale. Nevertheless, it is a matter of great importance and weight.

I am required to balance this harm against the public benefits of the proposal. [name] acknowledge that the appellant seeks to store their tools in the shed and their livelihood comes from using those tools, and that the shed is a therapeutic space, those are personal benefits. I recognise that the appellant currently uses the space to create birdboxes and other nature based projects, and that proposed planting could encourage wildlife, all of which would contribute a small benefit to the public. However, these benefits would be minimal and would not outweigh the harm identified.

Consequently, the proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with policies 1, 2, 12, and 24 of the Local Plan, policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document (2023), and the relevant paragraphs of the Framework, insofar as they seek high quality sustainable development that respects the locally distinctive character, and conserves and enhances the historic environment.

The appeal site is also located within the [name] and the Penwith Heritage Coast designations, and the Local Plan policy 23 2(b) sets out that development should maintain the character and distinctive landscape qualities of AGLVs and the Heritage Coast. Furthermore, saved policy CC5 from the Penwith Local Plan 2005 seeks to refuse development that would cause harm to the character and amenity of AGLVs.

The landscape is noted for its powerful sense of time depth due to the presence of historic settlements, including [name] centred around the distinctive tower of St

I have concluded above that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and to the character or appearance of the CA. It therefore follows that the proposal would adversely affect the character and distinctive landscape qualities of the AGLV and the Heritage Coast. Given the intentional saving of policy CC5 alongside the current Local Plan direction of policy 23 of the Local Plan, I find this harm to be significant.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policy 23 of the Local Plan, the saved policy CC5 of the Penwith Local Plan 2005, policy C1 of the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document (2023) and the relevant policies of the Framework, insofar as they seek to maintain the character and distinctive landscape qualities of AGLV’s and the Heritage Coast.

I acknowledge that the appellant has consulted a professional architect to produce the plans. However, I have found that the proposal is harmful despite the reduction in size, movement away from the wall, planting, and use of natural timber.

My attention has been drawn to several other nearby properties that already have front garden sheds or garages. However, I have not been directed to which properties these are, nor have I been supplied with any substantive detail to demonstrate against which iteration of the development plan these developments were considered against, or if they even have, or needed, planning permission at all.

I am directed to support by the Parish Council and an immediate neighbour; however, I also note multiple objections to the scheme. Notwithstanding the above, this support would not outweigh the harm identified.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.