Appeal 6003273

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.

An application for an award of costs in relation to the subject appeal has been made by [name] against Teignbridge District Council. This is subject of a separate decision.

The Emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040 (ELP) is at examination stage. The Council has identified that the proposal would conflict with Policies H11 and EN17 of this Plan. However, it is not in evidence whether these policies are subject to unresolved objections as emerging policies. As such, I have afforded only moderate weight to these policies in my consideration of the merits of the proposal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, with particular regard to the setting of the Shaldon Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal property comprises a single storey detached bungalow incorporating dormer windows to both the front and rear simple pitched roof slopes. It occupies a visually prominent corner position at the end of a row of detached and semi-detached dwellings. The site is adjacent to the CA, which lies immediately to the front, across the road. Owing to its elevated position, the property commands extensive views across the [name] towards Teignmouth and, in turn, is itself readily perceived in wider views of Shaldon and the CA. Within the surrounding area, several neighbouring dwellings have been subject to alterations of a more contemporary design character and there is an extant planning permission on the appeal site1.

The proposed development would increase the footprint of the first floor to the entire width of the ground floor. Taken together with the removal of the front and rear pitched roof elements the resultant effect would be to present the building as a box like structure, removing any semblance of a traditional roof structure and presenting a flat and square gable to the west elevation. To the east the visual effect would be that of a series of cascading boxes. The effect to the front elevation would be a full flat façade interrupted only by a setback for the balcony. The rear elevation would appear fully flat and exacerbate the visual box shape character of the proposal.

The resulting form would significantly increase the mass at first floor level and the box like first floor would visually jar against the extensive use of traditional roof forms in an area of visual prominence. The adverse effect of the proposal would be exacerbated due to the site’s corner position and being on a sloping site. Even where contemporary alterations have occurred in proximity to the appeal site, they have incorporated elements of traditional sloping roof design, meaning that they integrate into the visual coherence of the roofscape despite their use of contemporary materials and form in places.

Consequently, the first-floor roof alterations would dominate the host building, lacking any subservience and failing to complement the building. It would present an uncharacteristic roof form which would jar against the pleasant character of the surrounding area and its roofscape.

Furthermore, whilst there are some exceptions within the area, the prevailing character of the area is of vertical alignment of fenestration over different floors of the river facing elevation. This is particularly visible in the foreground of the CA but is also prevalent in the background of the village where the appeal site is located.

The existing dwelling of the appeal site has a horizontal emphasis to its front elevation, especially its ground floor fenestration and development here does typically appear low-rise when compared to the foreground CA. However, the appeal proposal would extend this fenestration at the highly visible first floor level. Given its increased mass, box like form, high visual prominence, and use of contrasting contemporary cladding at first floor, the use of horizontal plane fenestration would starkly and harmfully contrast with the wider area. Although development at No.18 also employs large areas of glass on the horizontal plane, this does not represent a characteristic approach to fenestration in the area and is an exception that does not complement the character of the area.

Whilst the appeal site is not located within the CA, it is adjacent to its boundary. The Shaldon Conservation Area Management Plan (the CAMP) and the Shaldon Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) set out that Shaldon has a highly distinctive coastal estuarine identity, having a visual relationship with Teignmouth that is both historic and functional. There is a sense of enclosure from the landscape behind 1 Reference 23/01307/HOU especially when contrasted with the openness of the water. The riverside to seaside transition is unusual and creates a dramatic townscape.

Significantly, the overall form, scale and roofscape of the village can be appreciated in full elevation from across the water in Teignmouth, where individual buildings, terraces and the historic waterfront are visible as a unified composition as they step up the hill. Furthermore, there are elevated panoramic views of the village nestled against the estuary making the contribution of the CA’s setting particularly strong. The modest, village scale of buildings within Shaldon creates a strong and visual contrast with the much larger formal tourist town of Teignmouth. Therefore, the setting of the CA is not just scenic, but a fundamental element that demonstrates how Shaldon is different to its neighbour.

Given the importance of the setting of the CA and the proximity and visual prominence of the appeal site, it follows that harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and the surrounding area will result in harm to the setting of the CA. The proposal would adversely affect elements that make a positive contribution to the setting of the CA, namely the roofscape and fenestration pattern, and would fail to better reveal its significance. Whilst the harm to the significance of the CA is less than substantial, this is a matter to which I must apply great weight. I must also balance this harm against any public benefits.

I accept that the proposal could improve thermal efficiency and provide a more efficient, better organised layout than the existing or the extant approved permission, and could provide easier access to parking, the dwelling, and the accommodation. However, I have not been provided with any evidence of the necessity of these matters or how they would provide any public benefit. I therefore consider them personal benefits that would not outweigh the harm identified.

The use of high-quality materials is commendable in its attempt to reflect established features in [site address] and Broadlands, and I accept that contemporary designs and material usage combined with policy compliance can create suitable schemes. However, in this instance, I do not accept that the use of contemporary materials would by itself be a public benefit, particularly when I have found harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the surrounding area, and the setting of the CA. I afford this matter little weight.

There is an extant planning permission which could be built. I accept that the proposal would be a somewhat smaller scheme, than the extant permission, meaning that there would be more garden space. However, this fallback position is not of greater harm than the proposal and the additional garden would be a private benefit that would not outweigh the identified harm. Furthermore, the proposal would provide some economic benefit through the employment of local construction workers and associated construction services and their use of local businesses. However, given the limited scale of the proposal any benefit would be limited.

I therefore conclude that the benefits would not outweigh the less than substantial harm I have found to the significance of the CA.

With respect to the appellant’s comments relating to permitted development rights, I do not have any substantive evidence before me to demonstrate what could be developed in accordance with those rights. As such, I cannot be certain there is a realistic prospect that permitted development rights could be implemented, or the scale of such works and I afford this matter little weight in my considerations.

Consequently, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the surrounding area and the setting of the CA. Accordingly the proposal would conflict with policies WE8 and EN5 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033, insofar as they seek complementary design where the scale is appropriate to the existing building and respects their setting. Furthermore, whilst applying only moderate weight the proposal would also conflict with [name] H11 and EN17, insofar as they seek high quality design that respects the host dwelling, local distinctiveness, and the setting of heritage assets. The proposal also conflicts with paragraphs 210, 212 and 215 of the Framework, insofar as it seeks development to make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness and seek to measure that harm and weigh that harm against any public benefit.

My attention has been drawn to several grants of planning permission in proximity to the appeal site, including the extant permission2. However, the extant permission retains elements of the simple pitched roof and aligns fenestration in a vertical plane. As a result, the approved scheme complements the existing dwelling and its surroundings and is materially different to the current proposal. Accordingly, the fall-back position does not provide significant weight in support of the proposed scheme.

The appellant has also referred to extensions approved at No’s 18 and 20. Whilst these decisions partly inform the local character and could demonstrate the type of development that has previously been found to be acceptable to the Council, I have assessed the subject appeal on its own merits. [name] 18 and 20 incorporate traditional roof form in their design, a characteristic element of the surrounding area not present in the subject appeal. Furthermore, these were found to preserve or enhance the setting of the conservation area by the Council. As such, these decisions contrast with the appeal scheme. For these reasons, I differentiate those schemes from the proposal and afford them little weight.

I am directed to the lack of objection from the Parish Council. However, the lack of objection does not indicate support and would not outweigh the identified harm. I acknowledge letters of support for the scheme stating that the proposal would improve the existing property; improve the property line from the Estuary and Teignmouth; be in keeping with more modern properties in the area; be a more sympathetic backdrop to the CA; compliment the scale and character of the surrounding area; and use sympathetic materials. However, as these comments relate to the effect of the scheme on the character and appearance of the area I have set out in my reasoning above why I do not concur with these views. I therefore afford the noted local support limited weight in my consideration of the merits of the proposal.

The appellant asserts that the proposal would comply with several policies within the Local Plan, including living conditions of current and future occupiers, improved thermal efficiency, and environmental and sustainability policies, amongst others. I accept that the proposal would comply with some aspects of the Local Plan, its objectives and supporting texts; however, these compliances would be neutral considerations in the planning balance. 2 Reference 23/01307/HOU

The appellant has referred to favourable pre-application discussions that took place with the Council. Whilst it is understandable that the appellant may be frustrated that the outcome of their planning application was different to that indicated at the pre-application stage, such discussions were given without prejudice to the formal decision of the Council.

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.