Appeal 6003593

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal relates to a failure to determine the application within the prescribed period, and the Council has described what its reason for refusal would have been, had it been determined. The Council’s main concern relates to the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Galmpton Conservation Area (CA). It has also provided a number of development plan policies, some of which are applicable to this matter. The appellant has had the opportunity to comment and would therefore not be prejudiced by it forming the basis for the main issue.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character or appearance of the CA.

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 significance of the CA is derived from its historic origins as a coastal village which contains a variety of period buildings amongst a network of banks and limestone walls.

While rendering and a variety of house design is not uncommon, many buildings surrounding the appeal site appeared to be constructed from stone and include similar attractive red brick detailing. Modern exceptions, including the unlisted appeal building, form a small part of an otherwise well preserved and picturesque setting. The appeal site comprises a modern bungalow positioned in an imposing and elevated plot. Read as something of an anomaly, it overlooks characterful stone buildings and a distinctive village landmark that is the [name].

The proposal would avoid a cramped form of development by maintaining the same overall footprint, and the hipped roof ground floor extensions would go some way towards reducing the overall perception of massing. The loss of chimneys would not be harmful, and natural slate represents a sympathetic choice of material. However, the proposed first floor would lack a sense of cohesion or uniformity. Consequently, it would visually compete with that beneath it, resulting in a disproportionate and jarring composition most unlike other nearby properties. These effects, accentuated by its expansive rendered elevations, would be further amplified by the massing of a particularly tall building positioned on such an elevated plot.

It is acknowledged that local policies do not require the use of specific cladding materials, though the submitted montage only serves to highlight how the eye would be drawn to an imposing and dominating development in the context of such a sensitive setting. In conflict with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) the proposal would not be visually attractive as a result of good architecture.

Therefore, it would fail to preserve the significance of the CA. In the terms of the Framework, the harm would be less than substantial. Given the proposal would alter a building that has very little architectural value, as a matter of planning judgement, the extent of this harm would be moderate. It is necessary to weigh the public benefits including, where appropriate, securing a development’s optimum viable use, against this harm.

In that context, it is submitted that the proposal would secure the long-term viable use of the dwelling, avoiding horizontal sprawl. There is however little evidence the use would be unable to continue without the development, or indeed that this particular design would be the only way to achieve long-term occupation. There would be some limited environmental public benefits through sustainable upgrades, the use of solar panels, and investment in an existing building rather than starting afresh. However, any such benefits do not outweigh the identified harm, to which I must attach great weight.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. There would be conflict with policies DE1 and DE5 of the Torbay Local Plan and Policy BH5 of the Brixham Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan. Collectively in this respect, and amongst other things, these policies seek to avoid extensions that would dominate the appearance of the original property, ensuring good quality design that respects the character and appearance of the surrounding area in terms of scale, height, and massing.

I have paid regard to the comments made in respect of the processing of the application, though these have no bearing on my decision which is based on the planning merits of the proposal.

I have taken into account representations about shadowing, daylight, and outlook in respect of living conditions, but these are matters which do not affect my findings on the main issue.

For the reasons above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposal would fail to accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no considerations individually or cumulatively that outweigh this. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and planning permission is refused.