Appeal 6004057

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 detached bungalow with accommodation within the roof space. As with many nearby properties, it occupies most of the width of its plot, where stepped gable projections, strong street‐line patterns and open‐fronted gardens form defining characteristics of the area. Although the building is neither listed nor situated within a conservation area, the aforementioned features are nonetheless recognised locally in the Croyde Character Area Assessment, which forms part of the Georgeham Parish Neighbourhood Plan (NDP).

The Council has not refused the scheme on the basis that it would conflict with NDP Policy BE6. Nevertheless, and putting to one side the matters that are not in dispute, the policy requires that extensions and additions be assessed in the wider context of the NDP’s housing and built‐environment objectives. These objectives, amongst other things, seek to preserve the quality and distinctive character of the area, as expressed in policies BE1 and BE4. In this regard, development is expected to make a positive contribution to local character areas, ensuring roof and street lines of the nearby streetscape are respected.

In that context, it is acknowledged property frontages are often used for vehicle parking or other residential paraphernalia and contain varying amounts of vegetation. Additionally, the development would be constructed of a high-quality oak, using matching roofing materials that follow the roofline. Views of and from the footpath would also not be disturbed.

However, although open sided, maintaining sufficient parking, the proposal would nevertheless introduce a disproportionately large and permanent roof structure that would project close to the pavement. Its elongated form would irrevocably disturb the otherwise quaint and consistent street line. Accordingly, it would not add to the overall quality of the area as required by paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and for the reasons given, the eye would be drawn to it as an incongruous feature.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with NDP policies BE1 and BE4, as well as policies DM04, DM25, and ST04 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan. Collectively, and amongst other things, these policies support development that responds and is sympathetic to site characteristics in terms of form, setting and layout appearance.

It is claimed that without the development, the appellant would have to consider erecting a less aesthetically pleasing temporary garage tent or car shelter. Even if such works could be carried out without requiring permission, this would not outweigh the permanent harm caused by the development.

The appellant refers to environmental benefits associated with the possible future installation of solar panels. These do not however form part of this proposal and there is little evidence they would be required to make it acceptable. Even so, any such gains would not outweigh the identified harm.

It does not necessarily follow that the absence of similar structures in the vicinity means that no new structures would ever be built. Indeed, as with this appeal, applications for planning permission are assessed on their individual merits and site-specific circumstances.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says development should be in accordance with the development plan ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’, and this is reaffirmed in the Framework.

I have found that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11 of the Framework would therefore not apply. Furthermore, even when considered cumulatively, the weight given to the other material considerations would not outweigh the identified harm. Accordingly, other considerations do not therefore indicate that permission should be granted contrary to the development plan. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.