Appeal 6003757

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.

The development has been undertaken. I am therefore considering the appeal retrospectively.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • The effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises a two‐storey semi‐detached dwelling situated within a residential street of comparable properties. The prevailing character of the street is defined by the consistent form of the semi‐detached houses, including their mainly hipped roofs, comparable fenestration patterns, and the use of similar external materials. The properties follow a broadly uniform building line and are set back an appreciable distance from the highway. Most dwellings are served by driveways, many of which retain some soft landscaping to their frontages and boundary walls, where they exist, are low. Cumulatively, these characteristics contribute positively to a coherent and visually harmonious streetscape. Additionally, the combination of set‐backs, low boundaries and planting provide a notable sense of openness at this location.

Although the structure has been partially set into the ground to lessen its impact, it nevertheless appears as an uncharacteristic feature within the street scene. Its position close to the highway, at the front of the property, together with its box‐like form, flat roof and use of materials that do not reflect those found elsewhere in the locality, results in a development that draws the eye and adversely impinges on the openness of the area. In doing so, it harmfully detracts from the pleasant and coherent characteristics that otherwise contribute positively to the appearance of the street.

I recognise that vehicles parked on driveways can add noticeable bulk to the frontages of properties in this location. However, vehicles are commonplace, moveable and temporary and the shed is permanent and immoveable. I therefore distinguish the shed from vehicles parked on driveways.

Upon my site visit I was able to see that the appeal building was being used as a tool store. However, there is no evidence provided that demonstrates the necessity for the tool store or that other alternatives for their storage have been examined.

No [address] has a shed in its garden, which I do not consider to be characteristic of the street. That property is a bungalow on the opposite side of the road, built of dissimilar materials. The shed is located to the side garden area, and the property displays an entirely contrasting character. Therefore, I differentiate it from the subject appeal and give it limited weight.

I have been directed to several other properties in the wider area that have structures to the front of the property. However, I have not been provided with any substantive detail to demonstrate against which policies and under which development plan those developments were considered, or if they even have planning permission at all. Regardless, those properties are in different locations to the appeal site and with different characteristics, and I therefore afford them limited weight.

The development causes significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area, failing to respect local distinctiveness and undermining the consistent and open street scene. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with the East Devon Local Plan (2016) (the Local Plan) policy D1, insofar as it seeks high quality design that respects the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which development is proposed. The proposal would also conflict with The Sidmouth Neighbourhood Plan (the SNP) policies 1 and 7, insofar as they seek proposals that complement and enhance local distinctiveness in the immediate locality and have a regard to the character of the area.

The street scene at this location is open with an absence of built form beyond the established building line. The appeal building uses uncharacteristic materials and form and is located to the front of the appeal site in a prominent position. Having regard to its prominent position, use of uncharacteristic form and materials and the openness of the street scene at this location, I consider that the development is not visually compatible with the character of the area. However, there is no unacceptable overshadowing, loss of sunlight, or adverse effect on the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore, despite its uncharacteristic appearance and form, it is not overbearing and does not lead to a sense of enclosure.

The Council have cited policies 1 and 7 of the SNP. I consider these policies to concern character and appearance and have based my considerations on the effects of the development on living conditions accordingly.

As such the development does not have such an adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook. Accordingly, the proposal complies with policy D1 of the Local Plan, insofar as it seeks to respect the amenity of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.

Evidence has been submitted in support of the appeal which confirms that a family member at the appeal property has a health condition. Therefore, I have had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in s149 of the Equalities Act

The duty includes having regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, and advance equality of opportunity between those sharing relevant protected characteristics and those who do not. Disability is a relevant protected characteristics to which the PSED applies.

These rights are engaged in reaching my recommendation and I have kept these interests at the forefront of my mind. However, they are qualified rights, and interference may be justified in the public interest. The concept of proportionality is key. The evidence sets out that the rear garden is an unsuitable location for the appeal building, being steep and required for sensory use, and that the appeal building is used to store tools. I recognise that the development may provide a secure space to store tools; however, there is no evidence to demonstrate the necessity of the tools; or that the appeal building is the only way to secure the tools; or the extent of the benefit to the family member with protected characteristics. I am also mindful that personal circumstances and ownership of the land can change, but the effect of the development would be permanent.

Thus, based on the evidence before me, the PSED considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. Following careful consideration of these matters I am satisfied that the impact of dismissing this appeal is proportionate and justified.

[name] accept there is no harm to residential amenity in terms of loss of light, privacy, or outlook, these are neutral considerations and do not weigh in favour of the development.

[name] also accept that minor surface water issues could be resolved by condition, this is not pertinent to the main issues and would not overcome the identified harm in terms of character and appearance. Likewise, the lack of conflict with heritage, ecology, highways, or access matters are also not pertinent to the main issues and the absence of harm to these matters is a neutral factor in the balance.

Whilst the proposal may align with some elements of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), this would not outweigh the conflict with the development plan I have identified.

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.