Appeal 6003097

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of land located in front of a large and imposing period property which is set on higher ground. Similar grand buildings are found in the immediate surroundings, typically separated from the road by generous green frontages. These buildings are distinguished by their ornate architectural details, including attractive window openings. Adjacent to the site is a rhythmic row of gable‐fronted properties with modest scaled fenestration. Beyond, lies a charming church. Together, these features form the defining character of this part of [site address] !.

Like many streets in the area, it is acknowledged that a mix of older and modern built form is commonplace. Within the more built-up area to the east, there are varied design examples, including recent low‐level infill development positioned in front of larger buildings. However, these properties are visually and physically separate from the appeal site, where built form is less prevalent.

The development would make use of complimentary materials including render, natural slate. There would be a matching dark grey colour scheme for facias, doors, windows, and rainwater goods. The proposal would also retain a characterful wall fronting the highway. However, even though attempts have been made to reflect the design of nearby Victorian properties, the presence of the central and narrow projecting gable frontage would be accentuated and dominated by a heavy fenestration detailing, untypical of its surroundings. This incongruity of design, together with somewhat bulky and featureless side elevations would be eminently visible from a range of viewpoints along the adjoining road.

Despite the absence of frontage garaging, the tall building height and close positioning next to the road would only serve to draw attention to it. Even if nearby flats were to be constructed, it is not clear from the available evidence how close these would be to the road. In any event, views of the host and adjacent properties, as well as the church would be significantly impaired by the development. Accordingly, the scheme would neither add to the overall quality of the area, nor would it be visually attractive as a result of good architecture as required by paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

For the reasons given, the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with policies ST04 and DM04 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan, which, together in this respect, seek to promote good design that is appropriate and sympathetic to setting in terms of scale, height, fenestration, and relationship to buildings.

The proposal would provide adequate private gardens, and parking spaces. It would be a safe, sustainably constructed property in a location with suitable access to services and facilities. There would be some economic benefits to the local economy during the construction phase and thereafter in the local community through additional consumer spend.

The support of the parish council is noted, though this is not a reason in itself to allow unacceptable development.

Comments made in respect of the processing of the application are acknowledged, although these have no bearing on my decision which is based on the planning merits of the proposal.

I have paid regard to the representations made in respect of other matters including living conditions of nearby residents. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not pursued these any further.

My attention has been drawn to a recent development to the east of the appeal site for a dwelling. While it has a road fronted garage, the main part of it is set further back in its plot when compared with the appeal proposal. It also includes proportionate openings and appeared to have first floor rooms built into its roof. The site-specific context for that building and its detailed design is materially different to that of the appeal scheme. It is therefore not directly comparable, and its presence does not persuade me to reach a different overall conclusion.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations individually or cumulatively that outweigh this. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the details for which approval is sought are refused.