Appeal 6001351

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for barn conversion and extension at [site address] , Devon [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref 25/01246/VAR, without compliance with condition number 1 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 25/00409/VAR, dated 10 March 2025 and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 1002/G1; 1680/012C; 1680/013A; 1680/014C; and 1680/021D.

The works shall proceed in strict accordance with the precautions, measures and enhancements described in the [name], the [name]/[name], and the [name]/[name] (all by Green Lane Ecology, dated August 2021, see especially section 4 of each report).

The development hereby approved shall proceed in strict accordance with the flood mitigation measures set out in Section 5.0 of the Flood Risk Assessment by Engineering & Development Solutions, dated May 2022. Flood resilience measures shall be maintained as installed for the lifetime of the development.

There shall be no habitable accommodation on the lower ground floor of the building hereby approved.

The workshop, stores, garage and boat store and working / boating courtyard proposed at lower ground floor shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling hereby approved and shall not be used, let, leased, used for commercial purposes, or otherwise disposed without the prior granting of consent in writing by the local planning authority.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development of the types described in [name], AA, B, C, D, E, and G of Part 1 of Schedule 2, Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 and [name] and I of Part 14 of Schedule 2 shall be constructed (other than those expressly authorised by this permission).

Within 3 months of the date of this decision, details of flood gate permeability measures, including an implementation timetable, shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The approved details shall be installed in accordance with the agreed timetable and maintained as such thereafter.

The Council has referred to Policy EN17 of the emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040 (ELP) in the decision notice. The plan is at an advanced stage and there is little evidence this policy is likely to be significantly amended, though changes could still occur. It is broadly consistent with Policy EN5 of the Teignbridge Local Plan (LP), and the policies contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Therefore, it can be afforded a good deal of weight.

This appeal seeks to vary the plans to account for works already carried out to an entrance wall and windows. At the time of my visit, works to both entrance wall and windows had been completed. Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows for retrospective permission for development already carried out. At my site visit I saw that some of the walling differed in its design to the proposed plans. Even so, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans that are before me. Any deviation from this will be a matter for the parties.

The appeal site has an extensive planning history relating to a barn that has been the subject of various permissions and amendments. This appeal links back to an original permission under Ref 22/01214/FUL dated 5 May 2023 for a barn conversion and extension. Changes to that permission were secured under application Ref 25/00409/VAR, which related to a chimney flue and the removal of a requirement for a window to be obscure glazed. Despite plans indicating such, neither permission imposed a planning condition restricting any windows to be obscure glazed.

The Council does not take issue with the clear glazing, though has concerns with the design of the wall within the context of the Ringwood Conservation Area (CA), and a nearby listed building.

I therefore consider the main issue to be the effect that varying condition 1 has on the character or appearance of the CA, including the setting of a nearby listed building.

The appeal site is located 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 close-knit groups of cottages and well-preserved historic buildings near an estuary frontage. Stone boundary walls create a sense of enclosure that add to the area’s local identity. These features are recognised in the Council’s CA Management Plan and can found in the vicinity of the appeal site. It is however noted that the wall subject to this proposal has largely been rebuilt. Furthermore, there are numerous examples of widened entrances to properties that punctuate the walled lanes. While a previous wall would have had some historic value, I do not consider what exists on site to be a non-designated heritage asset in its own right.

The Council is concerned that the scheme creates an overly suburban and intrusive form of development. Having paid regard to the Conservation Officer’s comments, the proposed entrance is undoubtedly wider than that permitted and includes an apron with a taller, solid timber fence. However, the walls are constructed from a sensitively laid out matching stone, of a similar tone to the fence. This continuity of material and palette has a recessive effect that counters any increase in the break in the wall.

Additionally, the entrance is positioned in front of a notably prominent backdrop that is eminently modern and suburban in its appearance. Consequently, the eye is not drawn to these less than grandiose foreground elements as being incongruous features within the CA. Given the proposal is only marginally wider than that permitted, its overall effect on the sense of enclosure generated by the wall within the context of the wider street is negligible.

There is a grade II listed building known as [address] opposite the appeal building, which is designated for its historic architectural value. There is a statutory duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest. While the appeal property and its associated walling are within the listed building’s setting, the proposed entrance itself is distinctly separated by the bend in the road and its distance. I have found above that the proposed alterations are not harmful to the CA and overall, the scheme has no meaningful effect on the setting of this heritage asset. I have been referred to a court case concerning [name], though, based on the available evidence, this does not alter my conclusion on this matter.

For these reasons, I conclude that varying condition 1 would preserve the character or appearance of the CA, and the setting of a nearby listed building. As such, there would be no conflict with LP policies S1, S2, or EN5 and Policy EN17 of the ELP. Collectively in this respect, and amongst other things, these policies aim to preserve and enhance the character, appearance, and historic interest of the area, including street patterns. LP Policy EN2A has been referred to by an interested party, though for the reasons given, there would be no conflict with it.

I have paid regard to representations made in respect of the planning history and other applications in the general vicinity. I have however determined the appeal on its site-specific merits which are not directly comparable with other schemes. I am also not bound by previous decisions of the Council.

The Council and interested parties have raised concerns in respect of potential flooding implications caused by the installation of the Iroko timber gates. The appellant acknowledges that these have been installed with flood protection measures. The Environment Agency has also highlighted that a continuous barrier, and in particular the gate, along the lane adjoining the appeal site would have an effect on flooding. I find no reason to disagree.

The original permission was granted in the knowledge that the boating courtyard area would be allowed to flood. It is therefore reasonable in these particular circumstances to seek further detail on the design of the gates. This would overcome flood risk concerns and accord with paragraph 170 of the Framework, which seeks to ensure development is safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Accordingly, the matter can be secured using a planning condition and the appellant is in agreement with such an approach.

There are concerns that the clear glazing would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address]. I am mindful of the National Design Guide requirements to maintain appropriate privacy, as well as amenity protection in the [name]. Although previous permissions have identified opaque glass on the plans, these could conceivably be substituted for new glass without requiring express consent.

In any case, the plans show the upper floor windows closest to [address] serve a hallway where intervisibility would be fleeting. The bedroom has other windows to provide primary natural lighting if occupiers preferred to close their roadside curtains and is at an angle where overlooking would be limited. The evidence does not convincingly demonstrate that clear glazing is unacceptably harmful, and I share the Council’s position that this element of the proposal is acceptable.

Having reviewed the evidence in respect of vehicles reversing onto the highway, there remains sufficient space to park and turn within the appeal site, if necessary. In fact, the recessed area in front of the widened gate entrance serves to make marginal improvements by taking vehicles off the road when making manoeuvres in and out of the appeal site. Furthermore, neither the Council, nor the Highway Authority has objected to this proposal on these grounds. In the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, a varied condition would not have an unacceptable effect on highway safety.

I have made some amendments and omissions to the Council’s suggested conditions in the interests of clarity and to ensure compliance with the Framework.

By allowing this appeal a new planning permission is created. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that, for clarity, decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 should restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect, unless they have already been discharged.

I have varied the plans condition showing the amended design that is the subject of this appeal. A compliance condition with the ecological appraisal is necessary in the interests of biodiversity. I have amended the necessary flood risk compliance condition as the dwelling is already occupied. For similar reasons, the avoidance of habitable rooms within the lower ground floor needs to be controlled. As explained above, I have added a condition to require details are submitted for the gates. This is to maintain permeability of flood water into the appeal site.

Control over the wider use of the site is reasonably necessary. Although not explicitly expressed by the Council, I consider this to be in the interests of flood risk and highway safety. I have reimposed a condition removing certain permitted development rights in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed. I will grant a new planning permission with varied conditions as set out in the formal decision.