None

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 April 2017 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 10th May 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/Y1138/D/17/3168036 Lamorna, People’s Park Road, Crediton, Devon EX17 2DA  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 agai nst a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Kevin O’Connell against the decision of Mid Devon District Council.  The application, Ref. 16/01470/HOUSE, dated 22 September 2016, was refused by notice dat ed 7 November 2016.  The development propos ed is the demolition of a boundary wall and attached outbuilding with retention of arched gateway, in order to create an off road parking bay . Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are (i) whether the character or appearance of the Crediton Conservation Area would be preserved or enhanced, and (ii) the effect on highway and pedestrian safety. Reasons 3. On the first issue, the officer’s report on the application refers to this part of People’s Park Road being linear in form and the high brick wall with its distinctive angular pedestrian arch providing a strong sense of enclosure. This wall is considered to be particularly visible in the public realm given its position alongside the road and opposite the park. 4. From my visit to the site and its surroundings I agree with the Council that the wall makes an important and positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area and, therefore, the latter’s significance as a designated heritage asset. It follows that even though this section of the wall is not specifically referred to in the Conservation Appraisal, its demolition would have a harmful effect, albeit that this revised scheme does have the advantage of retaining the arch. 5. Reference has been made in the representations to other demolished sections of the wall at Ashborne House and the adjoining Headleigh. However, both national and local policies have been updated in the decade or so since the former was permitted. I am also of the view that the visual impact of a parking bay with a car often parked across the house elevation at close quarters supports the case for the retention of the wall, especially having regard to the Appeal Decision APP/Y1138/D/17/3168036 2 cumulative impact given the proximity of Lamorna to Ashborne House and Headleigh. Moreover, if I were to allow the appeal it would make it difficult in all fairness for the Council to resist other similar applications that if granted would have a further adverse effect on the conservation area. 6. Turning to the second issue, I have noted the concerns of the Highway Authority as summarised in the Notice of Refusal. However, parallel parking already takes place alongside the wall and with no parking outside the adjoining garage I am not persuaded that the manoeuvres to enter, park in and leave the proposed bay would necessarily be so different as to materially increase the hazard for road users including pedestrians. Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (‘the Framework’) refers to development only being prevented or refused on transport grounds where its residual cumulative impacts of development are ‘severe’. Bearing in mind that the vehicle manoeuvres may be similar and that the road is quiet I do not consider that a refusal on this basis has been adequately demonstrated. 7. Despite my favourable conclusion for the appellant on this issue, this does not outweigh my finding on the first issue that the appeal proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. This is in conflict with Policy COR2 e) of the Mid Devon Core Strategy 2026 adopted in 2007, and Policies DM13a) & DM27b) of the Council’s Local Plan Part 3 Development Management Policies 2013 (I accept the appellant’s point that Policy DM2 does not appear to be particularly relevant). 8. As regards Government policy in Section 12 of the Framework: ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’, the proposal would amount to ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset, albeit that this does not alleviate the harm to which I have already referred. Paragraph 134 of the Chapter requires the harm to be weighed against any public benefit, but I do not regard the addition of one additional off street parking space to be sufficient to outweigh the effect on the conservation area. 9. I have considered all the other points raised by the appellant including the condition of the outhouse, whilst I also recognise the benefit to the household of having an off street parking space. However, nothing I have seen or read leads me to alter my conclusion that, on balance, I should dismiss the appeal. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR