Garage/store to front of property on north/west elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 September 2026 by J Evans BA(Hons) AssocRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6014276 127 North Street, Axminster, Devon EX13 5QH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr David Henderson against the decision of East Devon District Council. • The application Ref is 26/0520/FUL. • The development proposed is described as the erection of garage/store to front of property on north/west elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The application form confirms that the appeal proposal has been completed and this was evident to me during my site visit. Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended (the Act) makes allowance for the submission of a planning application for development which has been carried out before the date of the application. I have determined the appeal on that basis. 3. I have used the description of the development from the appeal form and the decision notice with minor variations as I consider this better reflects the proposal before me. However, I have removed the wording ‘retrospective’ from the description as this does not constitute a form of development as per Section 55 of the Act. 4. During the course of the appeal the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in August 2026. Both the Council and the Appellant were invited to submit comments, if appropriate, to the changes which form part of the revised Framework which have relevance to the appeal. Main Issue 5. The main issue in this case is the effects of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 6. The appeal property (No.127) is located towards the northern end of North Street which is characterised by broadly linear runs of mostly mid C20 two storey dwellings set back from the street by intervening front gardens, some of which are utilised for off-street parking. Appeal Decision 6014276 2 7. The proposal relates to a large single storey timber clad garage/store positioned adjacent to the public highway, which is visible from along North Street when approaching from the south and is openly visible from Lynch Close and the play area opposite No.127 to the west. 8. The garage/store is noticeably different in characteristics to what is found in other front gardens in the area. This is as a result of its overall size, massing and positioning directly adjacent to the highway. Whilst I appreciate that the garage/store has now been finished in green, which has to some extents softened its appearance, the garage/store still appears as an unusual and incongruous feature when viewed from the surrounding area. Also, due to its positioning tight to No.127’s site boundaries, there is no opportunity to provide suitable boundary enclosures next to the pavement or to the side, to help reduce its visual prominence. 9. Consequently, for the reasons I have set out above, the proposed development appears incongruous and detracts from the character and appearance of No.127 and the surrounding area. It therefore conflicts with Strategy 6 (Development within the built up area boundary) and Policy D1 (Design and Local Distinctiveness) of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and Section 14 of the Framework, which amongst other matters, require that proposals: respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed; relate well to the scale, massing, density, height, fenestration and materials of buildings in their context; are compatible with the character of the site and its surroundings; respect local distinctiveness; and are visually attractive as a result of good architecture. Conclusions 10. The appeal proposal has a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of No.127 and the wider area. 11. As a result of these negative effects, the proposal is in my view unacceptable, and contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that would justify a decision contrary to the provisions of the development plan, in this case. 12. For all of the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Evans INSPECTOR