Appeal 6001586

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of four garages to serve approved dwellings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 1485/25/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against South Hams District Council. That application is the subject of a different decision.

There is another appeal1 on part of the same site, relating to a full planning application for the erection of a further dwelling in an area of the garden of the Plot 6 dwelling of the previously approved residential development. That appeal is the subject of a separate decision letter.

There is a further appeal2 on the adjacent vineyard site, relating to a full planning application for the erection of an agricultural building to support the vineyard. That appeal is the subject of a separate decision letter.

The appeal relates to a planning application that was refused for a sole reason relating to its lack of evidence of a workable surface water drainage system, due to its reliance on connection to a surface water drainage system, which at the time of determination of the application, was subject to a discharge of a condition on a previous application for residential development on the site3, which had been allowed at appeal4, but which had yet to be discharged.

In the intervening period from the refusal of the application now at appeal, to the submission of the Council’s statement of case, the relevant surface water drainage 1 Appeal Ref: 6001648 2 Appeal Ref: 6001592 3 1386/22/FUL 4 APP/K1128/W/23/3315666 condition on the residential development application has been successfully discharged under application 3463/25/ARC. Accordingly, the Council now accepts that the basis of the drainage objection, namely its reliance on a drainage scheme not yet approved, no longer exists. The Council therefore no longer seeks to maintain a substantive objection on drainage grounds.

However, interested parties have raised several concerns, including, among other things, impact on privacy of neighbouring properties, garages are not needed, expansion of site, additional traffic impacts on narrow road, inaccuracies in submission, drainage and flooding effects and removal of landscaping. I address these concerns below.

The main issue is the scheme’s compliance with local and national policy, with particular regard to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties through effects on privacy, additional traffic impacts and highway safety, removal of landscaping, flooding and drainage.

The proposal is for four double garages, one of which would be associated with the existing farmhouse property known as ‘Dennings’. As garages, the proposed development would be an incidental use to the main dwelling with which their use would be tied. This incidental use could be restricted via an appropriately worded condition, ensuring that no other residential accommodation, business or commercial use could take place, without further examination.

Further, being mindful of a recently refused application for the addition of balconies to the approved dwellings, the use of the flat roofs of the garages as terraces or balconies could be restricted via an appropriately worded condition. I therefore find that with such conditions in place the proposal would not affect the privacy of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Turning to additional traffic impacts and highway safety, the proposed garages would not increase the number of dwellings on the site, nor would they increase the potential number of occupants. They would provide additional parking facilities for the already approved dwellings, together with other amenity benefits for their occupiers in terms of storage. Whilst comments have been made relating to the need for the garages, and the view expressed that they should have been included in the original application for the dwellings, these are not matters which carry any significant weight in the determination of the appeal.

As the proposal would not increase the amount of traffic in use from the approved dwellings, it would have little effect on traffic volume or highway safety. However, due to the restricted width of the highways in the immediate area, there would be potential for adverse highway effects during construction. However, the wider site development is already subject to a Construction Management Plan (CMP), due to this issue. It would, therefore, be appropriate to seek an addendum to the existing CMP, to mitigate any potentially harmful effects during construction of the garages, via an appropriately worded condition.

With regards to comments relating to the loss of landscaped areas resulting from the proposed development, whilst this may be the case at ground level, the use of green roofs to the garages would minimise any potential loss in landscaped area, as the green roofs would still provide ecological landscape benefits. Whilst there would be a reduction in the accessible external space available for residents of the dwellings, they would each have sufficient external space otherwise, such that the loss of this space for the garages would not detrimentally affect their living

Further to concerns raised by residents, the Council has confirmed that the position of dwellings on the submitted drawings accord with that previously approved.

Having regard to the drainage and potential flooding impacts of the proposed garages, the Council and the Lead Local Flood Authority have examined the proposal put forward in the 3463/25/ARC submission on the previously approved residential development scheme, and have a given approval to it, discharging the relevant condition. The garage proposal seeks to tie in the surface water disposal from the garage roofs to the scheme now approved.

[name] do not have the full details of the approved surface water drainage scheme before me, I am satisfied that owing to the relatively small area of additional roofs to be drained, and the potential for green roofs to provide attenuation effects in mitigating the speed of rainwater run-off, that an appropriate scheme for surface water drainage from the proposal can be provided, whilst mitigating any potential harmful effects to the surrounding drainage area.

Comments in relation to surface water, mud and gravel exiting the construction site onto the adjacent highway network, whilst serious, are symptomatic of construction sites during construction, prior to permanent drainage systems being in place, and often, do not reflect the effect of the completed development. These are matters for monitoring and implementation of the approved CMP.

Whilst drainage drawings were submitted with the application, I have not included them within the drawings approved by this appeal, as they may not reflect the surface water drainage scheme approved under 3463/25/ARC. I have therefore, applied a suitably worded condition requiring a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the garages, and how it discharges to the approved surface water drainage system, to be submitted to and approved by the Council, prior to commencement of works on the garages.

For the above reasons, I find the proposals would accord with Policies DEV20, DEV23 and DEV 35 of the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan (2019), and with Policy KWAC ENV6 of the Kingsbridge, [name], and Churchstow Neighbourhood Plan 2021-2034, which require, among other things, development to provide good design which is locally distinctive, and development within the Critical Drainage Area to ensure that it is safe without increasing flooding risk and pollution elsewhere.

Whilst the Council did not suggest specific conditions, I have had regard to the potential condition requirements highlighted in the officer’s delegated report. As some of these related to pre-commencement conditions, a Regulation 2(4) Notice under The Town and Country Planning (Pre-commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018 was issued to the appellant. The appellant has confirmed their acceptance of the proposed pre-commencement conditions, along with the other conditions suggested. I have therefore applied them accordingly.

In addition to the standard time limit for implementation, in the interests of certainty, I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans.

A pre-commencement condition requiring submission of a surface water drainage scheme for the garages and how this links with the system approved under 3463/25/ARC, to be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Council, is required to ensure that harmful effects of development on flooding are avoided.

A pre-commencement condition requiring submission to, and approval by, the Council of an addendum to the Construction Management Plan is required to ensure that harmful effects of the construction of the proposal are avoided or mitigated to protect the living conditions of the surrounding occupiers.

Conditions are necessary to ensure the control of materials used in the external envelope of the proposal, and for the green roof system, details and materials to be used on the garages, in the interest of the character and appearance of the area.

Conditions are also necessary to control the use of the garages to being incidental to the residential dwellings to which they are tied, and to prevent their flat roofs from being used as balconies or terraces, to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of surrounding properties.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal accords with the development plan, read as a whole, and that there are no material considerations, including policies in the Framework, that justify determining other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.