Appeal 6000457

The appeal is dismissed.

The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area, and the significance of the grade II listed building known as [name] Inn1.

The appeal site is an undeveloped grass verge located in a rural area. It is alongside a small settlement that is to one side of a road junction. Apart from the Inn to the north all other development in the area is on the east side of the road, which is the opposite side to the appeal site. Although the land on the other side of the road is developed, the undeveloped appeal site is seen as part of the open agricultural land to the west and is only separated from it by a low post and rail fence.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA) require the decision maker to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The listed Inn is to the north of the site. It dates from the 17th century, and the list description suggests it was probably built as a farmhouse. As well as its vernacular appearance, historic fabric and plan form, its significance is also derived from its undeveloped setting. This has been retained to a high degree to three sides of the building, and across a long stretch of the adjacent road the rural setting of the building can be experienced and understood. Although the land opposite the Inn is developed, the land to its rear and either side is not. The way that the building faces out from this mature and undeveloped rural landscape points to its likely 1 [name]: 1097351 agricultural origins and is an important characteristic of its setting that contributes to its significance.

The proposed unit would sit in an isolated position on the highway verge. It would not be close to any existing structure or landscape feature that could help to mitigate its visual impact. It would be sizeable. It would have the appearance of an isolated piece of industrial infrastructure that would be unrelated to anything around it and would appear entirely out of place with the undeveloped rural backdrop. The modest slope of the verge towards the field means that it would be sited slightly lower than the road, however the level difference is very small and not enough for this to reduce its visual impact.

Other structures such as the broadband cabinet and substation are on the other side of the road. They are not prominent to view as they are tucked in amongst mature vegetation. In contrast, not only would the proposed structure be isolated and prominent, it would also appear oversized in the context of the modest extent of development nearby that it would be seen to serve.

To the rear of the Inn there is a sizeable car park that includes various structures such as a storage container. This area is well related to the rear of the Inn and is not prominent to view from its front elevation, or in views from the north or south along the main road. Thus, the existence of this parking area and its associated structures has had limited impact on the rural setting of the Inn. It is a developed area that is unrelated to the appeal site and does not lessen the impact of the

Additional drawings submitted at appeal suggest a timber fenced enclosure as an alternative to the mesh originally proposed. The fence panels would be high at nearly 2.5 metres and would fail to lessen the structure’s bulky appearance.

Landscaping is also suggested to mitigate the proposal’s impact. The submission refers to planting on the east and south elevations. It is not clear what form this could take or what would be possible given that the proposal would be erected on a highway verge. I cannot therefore be confident that a landscaping scheme would be sufficient to address the proposal’s impact.

The proposal would have a considerable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area for the reasons given. It would also significantly erode the undeveloped agricultural setting of the building and thus harm its significance.

In terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) the harm to the significance of the listed building would be less than substantial. The extent of harm would be of a medium level as it would erode an important aspect of the listed building’s setting that contributes to its significance. The harm would be of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework establishes that any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The submissions set out that the structure would serve to import electricity from the local network when demand is low or when renewable output is high. It would also export to the local network when necessary, to allow for network flexibility and reliability. It would aid the transition to net zero by 2050. It is therefore met with support from a range of national policy documents. Framework paragraph 168 states that significant weight should be given to the benefits associated with all forms of renewable and low carbon energy, which applies to the appeal proposal on the basis that it is for an element of associated infrastructure. To support the transition to net zero, it is recognised that a significant amount of new infrastructure is needed.

The appellant advises that it is difficult to find suitable sites. A site must be close to a substation and close to electricity demand and it is hard to find willing landlords as rental that can be offered is limited. Although the site may be appropriate from a technical perspective, its suitability is however highly questionable given my findings above. Furthermore, there is nothing before me to explain why the structure needs to be sited here or in this area, how it relates to infrastructure in the area, or what other sites have been discounted and why.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset. The matters raised in the preceding paragraph lessen the weight that I should give to the benefits of the proposal, and as a result I find that they are not sufficient to outweigh the level of harm identified.

In summary, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and the significance of the listed building. In reaching this decision I have had regard to the requirements of the LBCA. The proposal would fail to accord with Policies S1, S2 and EN5 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 and Policies CC7, EN17, GP1, GP3 and DW2 of the Emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-

Together these seek to ensure that development proposals integrate with local character and avoid harm to heritage assets, including those proposals that are for energy storage.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.