Appeal 6000670

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two dwellings and access with some matters reserved (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) at land between Southlands and No.[address], Shirwell, Barnstaple, Devon [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 79527 subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I have used the address in the formal decision, which is based on the Council’s decision notice, and also referenced on the appellant’s appeal form. This is because the site address section of the application form is incomplete.

The description of development set out in the banner heading above was amended prior to the determination of the application and with the agreement of the main parties. The description is shown on the Council’s decision notice as “Outline application for the erection of two dwellings and access with some matters reserved (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) ([name])”. I have dealt with it on that basis.

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location having regard to the local housing strategy, including character and appearance of the area.

Policy ST07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 (LP) sets out the Council’s development strategy for the rural area, which focuses on local centres, followed by the villages. The supporting text says, amongst other things, that while appropriately located growth will be supported, the Local Plan will also seek to ensure development does not exacerbate the area’s dispersed settlement pattern.

In that context, LP Policy SHW sets out the spatial strategy for Shirwell. Amongst other things, it seeks to provide a minimum of 8 dwellings to meet the range of needs in the community. To meet local needs and growth aspirations, LP Policy DM23 supports development in villages without development boundaries, such as Shirwell, either if they are within its principal built form, or where well related to it and provide affordable housing.

The appeal site is made up of two parts, where one makes use of previously developed land within a garden area between properties, and fronting a road. This is tightly enclosed and bounded by a well establish hedge. As such, I agree with the Council’s policy officer comments in respect of a previous approval here for 1 dwelling that it is within the principal built form of the settlement.

That said, this plot leads to the second part of the appeal site. Here, lies a much larger area of greenfield land which is separated from a notably expansive wider field by a post and wire fence, with landform sloping away towards the countryside. This area is however partly bounded by established hedges and would follow the boundary extent of the rear gardens at [address]. As such, although undeveloped, its characteristics are more reflective of an enclosed paddock that then transitions into the distinctive open countryside beyond.

While the layout is indicative, approval is sought for the detailed access arrangements. These, along with the probable retained hedge near the middle of the appeal site, would push housing development further into the open countryside, rather than rounding it off. The development would be unlikely to be visible from the highway. Furthermore, any views from the east would probably be tempered by the backdrop and presence of nearby housing. Additionally, despite having a large garden, the provision of an additional hedge on the eastern boundary would also provide an overall softening effect.

As such, it is reasonable to conclude that as well as the roadside plot, the eastern property could be developed without harming the key characteristics of the area, thereby aligning with LP Policy DM04. Although this plot does not form part of the principal built form of the settlement, it would be well related to it. However, LP Policy DM23 only supports well-related proposals where they include a focus on affordable housing. In addition, LP Policy SHW addresses growth within the settlement, so its landscaping criteria do not apply to this plot. Nevertheless, as the proposal does not include affordable housing and there is no mechanism before me to secure it, the scheme would conflict with LP Policy DM23.

Drawing these matters together, while the development could be progressed without harm to the character and appearance of the area, and part of it would be in the settlement, the lack of affordable housing provision means the proposal would not fully align with the intentions of the local housing strategy. There would consequently be some conflict with LP policies ST07, DM23, and SHW.

The appeal site is near the [name] listed Youlston Park and Garden with a significance derived from its historic setting. There is a statutory duty to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. The appeal proposal is somewhat separated from the park by rising topography and vegetation. The proposal would therefore have a neutral effect on its setting. Accordingly, I am satisfied the proposal meets the requirements set out in s.66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (The Act). There would also be no conflict with LP Policy ST15.

I have paid careful regard to the objections to the proposal, including those made by the parish council. There are concerns relating to flood risk, though the Council has not objected to the proposal on this ground and I have been provided with no substantive evidence to indicate the scheme should be held back on this basis.

Furthermore, the issues relating to the appearance and scale of the development as well as possible privacy implications are noted, though these would need to be addressed at reserved matters stage.

It is common ground that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. The current supply is said to be about 4.86 years. The Framework indicates that where the requisite housing land supply does not exist permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

It is important that development happens in the right places, and the Framework explains in paragraph 11 d) ii. that particular regard is paid to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations. While pedestrian access to the heart of the village would be somewhat restricted by the busy trunk road, I have already concluded that the appeal site is well related to a village. Furthermore, part of is within the principal built form. This village is said in the LP to have a primary school, hall, and some small businesses. Additionally, it is stated there is a regular bus service to Barnstaple.

Key policies set out in the Framework relating to affordable housing are focussed on major development rather than proposals of this scale. Elsewhere in the rural housing chapter, the support for affordable housing exception sites is acknowledged. However, so is the requirement to locate housing where it will maintain of enhance the vitality of rural communities. The Council has already permitted a single dwelling on the appeal site, accepting its suitability as a sustainable form of development. Therefore, for the reasons given, I consider that the proposal would not be in overall conflict with national planning policy.

The social benefits of housing delivery carry significant weight, though given a recent permission on the site, this would be limited to one additional dwelling. The contribution to the shortfall would be modest. The scheme would however be within and on the periphery of an identified village with some facilities and good connections elsewhere. It could also still be occupied by local families. The overall social benefits weigh in favour of the proposal.

There would be some limited economic benefits to the construction industry and thereafter through additional consumer spending in the local economy. In that respect, although in outline, there is little evidence the development would be delayed if the appeal were to be allowed. The loss of some hedgerows and other vegetation is noted, though overall landscaping and biodiversity enhancements would be achieved.

Against these benefits I need to balance the adverse impacts. The provision of an open market rather than an affordable home would contribute only in part towards the social needs of the community. However, for the reasons given, any failings in respect of the social arm of sustainable development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the aforementioned benefits. The proposal would amount to sustainable development as set out within Framework paragraph 11.

I have made some amendments to the Council’s suggested conditions in the interests of clarity and to ensure compliance with the Framework.

I have imposed a plans condition in the interests of clarity. A condition to deal with unexpected contamination is required in the interests of pollution control. Conditions relating to the construction phase and access and visibility arrangements are necessary in the interests of neighbouring living conditions and highway safety. It is reasonably necessary to secure bird and nesting boxes for the purposes of biodiversity enhancements.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says development should be in accordance with the development plan ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’, and this is reaffirmed in the Framework.

The identified conflict with the Council’s housing strategy is outweighed by other considerations, including the Framework. This indicates that permission should be granted contrary to the development plan. For the reasons given, the appeal should be allowed.

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.

Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.

The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 80 01 received by the Council on the 07/11/24, and 80 13 [name] received by the Council on the 01/5/25.

Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development or relevant phase of development shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Prior to the commencement of development, including any site clearance, groundworks or construction (save such preliminary or minor works that the local planning authority may agree in writing), a Construction Management Plan (CMP) detailing how development works will be managed during the life of the works shall be submitted in writing for the approval of the local planning authority. For the avoidance of doubt and where relevant, the CMP shall include: a) details of control measures for addressing fugitive dust from earthworks and construction activities; b) a noise control plan which details hours of operation and proposed mitigation measures; c) specified parking for vehicles associated with development works; d) details of measures to prevent mud contaminating public footpaths and roads; e) arrangements for materials deliveries, storage and waste materials removals; f) a point of contact (such as a [name]/site manager) responsible for dealing with any complaints. The details so approved and any subsequent amendments as shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority shall be complied with in full and be monitored by the applicants to ensure continuing compliance throughout and until completion of the development.

During the construction phase no machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site outside the following times: a) Monday - Friday 0800 - 1800, b) Saturday 0800 - 1300 c) nor at any time on Sunday, Bank or Public holidays.

Prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings on the site, the access, parking and turning provision as detailed on approved drawings shall be constructed in full and be available for their intended use and retained in perpetuity thereafter.

No part of the development hereby approved shall be commenced until the access and visibility splays have been constructed and laid out for that purpose in accordance with the approved drawing Ref: 80 13 [name]. These visibility splays shall be maintained thereafter.

Prior to the buildings hereby approved being brought into first use, a bird box shall be installed on the north or east elevation, and a bat nesting box shall be installed on a west or south-west elevation in a position where it will not be in full/direct sunlight. Any box installed shall be maintained and retained thereafter.