Appeal 6000652

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal includes an amended ‘Proposed site plan’ reference C2510.06 revision B relocating the site access a short distance to utilise an existing access. The Highway Authority has been consulted and the Council has had the opportunity to comment on the plan. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the amended plan.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the proposed changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issues are: • Whether the site would be in a suitable location having regard to development plan policies concerning new housing in the countryside and the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings with particular reference to the East Devon National Landscape; and • The appellant’s personal circumstances and the need for the proposed development.

The site lies outside the Built-up Area Boundary (BUAB) and is within the open countryside for the purposes of development plan policy. Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan 2016 (EDLP) identifies the circumstances in which development in the countryside may be permitted.

The site also falls within the East Devon National Landscape. In addition to the statutory duty at section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the Framework requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. Strategy 46 of the EDLP has similar objectives and states that development will only be permitted where it complies with 3 criteria.

The site is within [name] 3B: ‘[name] and Settled Valley Slopes’ of the [name] and Blackdown Hills Landscape Character Assessment 2019 (LCA). The LCA states that forces for change acting on this [name] includes pressure for incremental growth around the edges of villages which can affect the setting of villages and how they are seen in the landscape.

The site forms part of an open field beyond the edge of the existing development along the southern side of [site address] . Whilst there is a scout hut opposite the site and existing dwellings to the east of the scout hut along the northern side of the lane, the site forms part of an attractive mix of open, rolling fields, trees and woodland beyond the village edge on the southern side of the lane. Mature hedgerows are a distinctive feature of the site and the wider landscape and contribute to its scenic beauty. The site, the field in which its sits and the mature hedgerow separating the site from [site address] contribute significantly to the pleasant, rural qualities of the landscape setting of the village and are consistent with [name] 3B as described in the LCA.

Whilst the site is located close to existing houses, it lies beyond the edge of the village with a section of field separating it from the existing buildings on the southern side of the lane to the west. As there is no existing development on the southern side of [site address] abutting the eastern or southern boundaries of the site, the dwelling would not constitute infilling or appear as rounding off of the existing edge of the village. Instead, the dwelling together with its forecourt and driveway would be an extension of the existing development along the frontage on the southern side of the lane into the adjoining countryside. Combined with the reduction of part of the existing hedge along the frontage with [site address] to achieve the easterly visibility splay, this would erode the attractive rural character of the edge of the village and harm its landscape setting.

Even though the development would be limited in size and the first floor accommodation would be in the roof space, the development would nevertheless be visible from [site address] through the widened site access and over the reduced section of hedgerow adjacent to the access. Whilst longer views from the lane and bridleway to the east would be limited by the intervening hedgerows, I saw that the height of some of the hedgerows had been reduced since the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment was produced. Although the dwelling would be viewed partly against the back drop of the neighbouring buildings, it would nevertheless be visible in some longer views through gateways and over the hedgerows.

Taken together, these physical and visual effects of the proposal would undermine the quality of the landscape. Although native hedgerow planting is proposed around the site boundary which in time would soften its appearance, the development would not conserve or enhance the landscape character of the area. It would result in a moderate level of harm to the current scenic beauty of the landscape on the edge of the village.

Therefore, for the reasons given, the development would not be in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies concerning new housing in the countryside and would harm the rural character and appearance of the site, its surroundings and the East Devon National Landscape. As a consequence it conflicts with [name] 7 and 46 which restrict development in the countryside and seek to conserve and enhance the landscape character of the area. It also conflicts with the general housing guidelines in policy UHG2 of the Uplyme Neighbourhood Plan 2017 (UNP).

The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. The Framework also recognises the needs of different groups in the community. This includes people with disabilities. From the evidence before me, my decision has the potential to affect someone with a protected characteristic for the purposes of the PSED.

The proposed dwelling has been designed to take account of the appellant’s disability. Whilst tests to establish the precise nature of the condition are continuing, the dwelling would enable self-care whilst also being able to accommodate a live-in carer if necessary. It would allow the appellant to live close to Uplyme where she was brought up and has family connections. The site is being donated by a family member thereby making the scheme affordable for the appellant as a self-build.

Although the location of the site close to the village and its facilities would have the benefit of allowing the appellant to be close to family, the evidence does not demonstrate why a suitable accessible dwelling further afield would not meet the appellant’s needs. Whilst enquiries have been made unsuccessfully of local estate agents and the Council to establish whether there are any adapted and suitably accessible properties available in the area, I have not been provided with the details of those enquiries, the area of search or the responses received. Nor have I been provided with clear evidence that there are no existing dwellings which could be adapted to meet the appellant’s needs.

[name] 36 recognises the need for accessible and adaptable homes and seeks to meet the need by securing a proportion of them on major developments, it does not address the provision of single dwellings.

Therefore, for the above reasons, and on the basis of the evidence before me, the personal circumstances of the appellant attract moderate weight in favour of the proposal.

Whilst not referred to in the description of the development, the proposal would have the benefit of providing one self-build dwelling. The Council indicates that it has granted sufficient permissions to meet the demand for self-build and custom build plots. Whilst no evidence has been presented to demonstrate this, nor have I been provided with any clear evidence to show that there is an identified need other than to address the personal circumstances of the appellant. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence before me, the provision of an additional self-build unit would be a limited benefit of the scheme.

There would also be a limited environmental benefit arising from the incorporation into the development of renewable energy, a sustainable drainage system, bat and bird boxes, bee bricks and wildlife friendly planting.

The Council indicates that the East Devon Local Plan 2020-2042 Regulation 19 [name] 2025 includes a review of the BUAB for Uplyme. The evidence does not include details of the review or the proposed amended boundaries or the stage which the draft plan has reached. It therefore carries limited weight in this appeal.

[name] have been referred to other dwellings and the scout hut which have been approved in the vicinity of the site and further afield, and a number of which I saw on my site visit, I am not aware of the full details of those developments or their planning context. Notwithstanding this, they do not justify the harm which would be caused by the proposal extending the existing pattern of development along the southern side of [site address] into the National Landscape. I have determined the appeal on its individual merits.

The Council can only demonstrate 2.97 years’ supply of deliverable housing sites. Consequently, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework requires that consideration of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is necessary.

Notwithstanding the Council’s housing land supply shortfall, applying footnote 7 to paragraph 11d) i. of the Framework, the conflict with the Framework’s policy for conserving and enhancing National Landscapes provides a strong reason for refusing the proposed development. As a consequence, paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework is not engaged and the appeal should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The EDLP and UNP form the development plan for the area in which the site is located. The moderate harm to the landscape identified above results in conflict with [name] 7 and 46 and UNP policy UHG2. As a result, there is conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole.

Paragraph 232 of the Framework makes it clear that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their consistency with the Framework. The Framework recognises the intrinsic beauty and character of the countryside; and requires that valued landscapes should be protected and enhanced. The EDLP and UNP policies referred to in the paragraph above are consistent with the Framework. Therefore, conflict with them is given substantial weight in this appeal.

The Framework highlights that small sites such as this can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement in the area and are often able to be built out relatively quickly. Therefore, this benefit carries moderate weight in favour of the proposal. The limited benefit of the additional self-build and custom built dwelling also attracts moderate weight in favour of the proposal as do the limited environmental benefits.

I have had regard to the PSED set out in the Equality Act 2020 and taken full account of the personal circumstances of the appellant which carry moderate weight in favour of the proposal. However this and the totality of the other benefits do not outweigh the harm which would be caused to the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape which carries great weight against the proposal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.