2 storey rear extension and replacement detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 June 2020 by Nick Davies BSc(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 September 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/Q1153/D/20/3247842 1 Road From Rock Cottage to Morwellham, Morwellham PL19 8JL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Roger & Nancy Backaller against the decision of West Devon Borough Council. • The application Ref 3154/19/HHO, dated 26 September 2019, was refused by notice dated 8 January 2020. • The development proposed is a 2 storey rear extension and replacement detached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a 2 storey rear extension and replacement detached garage at 1 Road From Rock Cottage to Morwellham, Morwellham PL19 8JL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3154/19/HHO, dated 26 September 2019, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Procedural Matter 2. The appeal was submitted soon after two other appeals, which related to a combined two-storey extension to Nos 1 and 2. The decision letters were issued on 20 July 20201. Those appeals also fell to me for determination, and I visited the site on 25 June. Consequently, it has not been necessary for me to carry out a further visit to determine this appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the development would conserve the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site (the WHS). Reasons 4. Paragraph 184 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) says that World Heritage Sites are heritage assets of the highest significance, which are internationally recognised to be of OUV. The WHS was inscribed in 2006, and comprises ten areas across Cornwall and West Devon that were heavily influenced by copper and tin mining in the period 1700 to 1914. The Statement of OUV says that the remains of mines, engine houses, smallholdings, ports, harbours, canals, railways, tramroads, and industries 1 Planning Inspectorate references: APP/Q1153/D/19/3243332 and APP/Q1153/D/19/3243333 Appeal Decision APP/Q1153/D/20/3247842 2 allied to mining, along with new towns and villages, reflect an extended period of industrial expansion and prolific innovation. It adds that the ten areas form a unified, coherent cultural landscape, and share a common identity. 5. The appeal site lies within Area 10 of the WHS, the Tamar Valley Mining District with Tavistock, which includes the river Tamar and its associated industrial river quays. The Tamar was the natural highway for most of the traffic within the Area, and Morwellham was developed as an industrial port with rail links to its mining hinterland. It is identified as a Principal Site on the map of key OUV features for the Area. Furthermore, the WHS Management Plan 2013 – 2018 (the Management Plan) confirms that Morwellham is one of three Key Centres for interpretation of the WHS. The appeal site therefore lies in an area that is of particular importance to the OUV of the WHS. 6. The historic village centre retains a high level of authenticity, due to the largely unaltered buildings originating from the mining period, and the surviving machinery and artefacts around the quayside. The appeal site is one of a series of terraced houses that lies a short distance to the west of the village core, overlooking the quay. The application was not accompanied by a statement describing the significance of the heritage asset, and the potential impact of the proposal on its significance, as required by paragraph 189 of the Framework. However, the evidence before me indicates that the houses were built in the 1840s, as part of the planned development of the port, to provide accommodation for the associated workforce. Consequently, they are an important component of this key site within the WHS. 7. The houses are arranged in five separate terraces in a straight row, each originally comprising four dwellings. Each block has a hipped slate roof with three prominent brick chimney stacks. The buildings are of quite simple design, but have dressed stone entrance porches with pitched roofs, which are on the sides of the end-terraced houses and the front of the central ones. Each house has a long front garden. The symmetry continues at the rear, where there is a continuous stone wall enclosing the small back gardens, each of which has a gated access to the shared access road. Most of the houses retain a slate- roofed stone outbuilding on the rear boundary, which is paired with the neighbouring house. The uniformity of the form, design and detailing of the buildings gives the whole group a coherent character. Their largely unaltered appearance, and proximity to the historic quay, means that their planned function as modest workers’ housing is easily interpreted. 8. The appeal site is a constituent part of the most southwestern of the terraces. Although the symmetry of this block has been upset at the rear by a substantial two-storey extension to Nos 3 and 4, the front remains largely unaltered. No 1 retains all the characteristic features that contribute to the cohesion of the group as a whole, including a stone side porch, and a shared stone outbuilding to the rear. It therefore makes a positive contribution to the authenticity and integrity of the heritage asset and, therefore, its OUV. 9. Paragraph 193 of the Framework says that, when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). Policy DEV 22 of the Plymouth & South West Devon Joint Local Plan 2014-34 (the Local Plan) requires Appeal Decision APP/Q1153/D/20/3247842 3 development proposals within the WHS to conserve, or where appropriate, enhance the OUV of the site. 10. In determining the previous appeals, I concluded that the combined extension would overwhelm the original rear elevation of the two houses, and result in the visual amalgamation of the two buildings, concealing their identity as two modest workers’ dwellings. The proposal now before me is much reduced in scale, as the roof structure is not combined with an extension to the adjoining cottage. Furthermore, the ground floor has been reduced in width by the omission of the previously proposed lean-to along the side elevation. As a result, the proposal is now virtually identical in scale and form to the extant planning permission2 for a two-storey rear extension to No 2, which has already been commenced. 11. The rear extension would now be set in from the side elevation of the cottage, and it would have its own, much lower and narrower, hipped roof. Consequently, it would conceal far less of the original rear wall and roof, and it would not result in a visual coalescence of the two cottages. In my previous decision, I concluded that the combined extension would be largely hidden in views from the northeast, along the rear access drive, by the existing extension at Nos 3 and 4. The reduction in the height of the individual extension now proposed, means that it would be even less visible from this view. It would also be hidden by the approved extension to the adjoining cottage. Whilst it would be visible from the carpark to the southwest, the reduction in its scale, and the separation of the roofs, would allow the original form of the two buildings as modest workers’ dwellings to remain discernible. 12. The revised proposal therefore overcomes the reasons that led me to conclude that the combined extension would be harmful to the contribution the cottages make to the authenticity and integrity of this key site within the WHS. In coming to this view, I am mindful that the cumulative impact of two-storey extensions could, progressively, erode the authenticity and integrity of the heritage asset as a whole. However, the recently approved extension at No 2 would mean that three out of the four cottages in this particular block would already have two-storey extensions. In this context, the extension would not be harmful. However, any future proposals for extensions to cottages in the wider group, would have to be considered on their own merits, including the extent to which the other blocks retain their authenticity and integrity. 13. I have also taken into account that the extension would link to the existing outbuilding. These detached stone outhouses provide a symmetry and rhythm to the group of cottages when viewed along the rear access road from the northeast. However, at this end of the terrace, the outbuilding at Nos 3 and 4 has already been removed, and the approved extension to No 2 will already link to the shared outbuilding on the appeal site. The sense of cohesion and symmetry provided by the outbuildings has therefore already been lost in this block. 14. The proposal would involve significant internal alterations, but, as the building is not listed, these works would not require planning consent. A first-floor window would be inserted in the side elevation of the original cottage, but it would be of similar proportions to the existing first-floor window and would not have an obvious impact on the authenticity of the original cottage. In any 2 LPA Ref: 1967/18/HHO Appeal Decision APP/Q1153/D/20/3247842 4 event, any harm caused by this alteration would be balanced by the reinstatement of a timber door in the porch on the same elevation, in place of the current uPVC window. 15. The Council contends that the policy context has changed considerably since planning permission was granted for the extension at No 2, in August 2018. However, it was approved after inscription of the WHS, when the July 2018 version of the Framework already identified such heritage assets to be of the highest significance. Furthermore, the Management Plan was already in place, and the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) had been adopted in May 2017. Although the Local Plan had not been adopted, it was at an advanced stage of preparation. There has not, therefore, been a fundamental change in national or local planning policies since the Council determined that the extension at No 2 would not affect the OUV of the WHS. 16. The replacement detached garage is identical to that which was approved in my previous appeal decision, so it already benefits from planning permission. 17. I therefore conclude that, in the particular context and circumstances of the appeal site and its immediate surroundings, the development would not result in harm to the OUV of the WHS. I therefore conclude that the proposal would comply with Local Plan Policy DEV22, the Management Plan and the SPD, all of which seek to protect, conserve and enhance the OUV of the WHS Conditions 18. In accordance with the legislation, I have imposed a condition limiting the period within which the development must commence. I have also included a condition specifying the relevant plans, as this provides certainty. The Council has submitted a schedule of suggested conditions to cover other matters. I have considered these against the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. Where I have agreed that the conditions are necessary, I have altered them, in the interests of clarity and precision, to better reflect the guidance. 19. In order to ensure that the extension is sympathetic to its historic setting, conditions to ensure the use of appropriate external materials; doors and windows; and architectural detailing are reasonable and necessary. 20. As the site is already well-screened by the hedgerow to the southwest, I see no justification to require further planting to be carried out. However, I have included a requirement for details of hard surfaces to be agreed with the Council, alongside the other external materials. Conclusion 21. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Nick Davies INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/Q1153/D/20/3247842 5 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; 490/01 – Survey Site Plan; 490/03 - Survey Elevations; 490/04 Survey Roof/Block Plan; 490/05 Rev A - Proposed Roof/Block Plan; 490/06 Rev A - Proposed Site Plan; 490/07 Rev A – Proposed Floor Plans; 490/08 Rev A - Proposed Elevations; 490/09 - Proposed Garage No 1 Details. 3) Development shall not proceed above damp-proof course level, until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings and hard surfaces hereby permitted, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) Prior to their installation, details of all new windows and doors, including cross-sectional drawings at a minimum scale of 1:10, shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5) Prior to their installation, details of the sills, eaves, rainwater goods, hips and ridges, including cross-sectional drawings at a minimum scale of 1:10, shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.