Appeal 6000688

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

Reference is made in the description of the development to the change of use being “retrospective.” This in itself is not a form of development under the Act1 and I have not taken it into account in my decision. However, I saw on my site visit that the cabin has been equipped with a double bed, kitchen area and shower room as shown on the ‘[name] & Elevations’ plan.

The main issue is whether the development is in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies concerned with holiday accommodation in the countryside.

The existing cabin is situated to the rear of [site address] . Whilst there are dwellings and other buildings in the vicinity, the site lies in an area of attractive countryside bounded by trees and open fields. It is located some distance from Uplyme and the limited services and facilities it provides. 1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

The use of the cabin is designed to accommodate a maximum of two guests. No external alterations are proposed to the building, which is a modest, single storey, predominantly timber structure.

East Devon Local Plan 2016 (EDLP) policy E16 requires that the conversion of existing buildings in the open countryside for small scale holiday accommodation should be compatible with the criteria set out in that policy. Whilst the use is small in scale and does not harm the amenities enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring properties, and has sufficient onsite parking, access to the village by foot is via narrow, unlit roads without footways or street lighting. Coupled with the distance to the village and, in places, the steep gradients along the route, this means that the site would not have safe or convenient access to the village for pedestrians, particularly after dark or in poor weather.

Whilst it may be possible to cycle to the village and elsewhere, the site is not on a public transport route. The evidence does not demonstrate the location of the nearest bus stop, the bus routes served or the frequency of any bus service. Nor is the location of the nearest railway station identified. This poor access to the site by foot and public transport conflicts with the fourth criterion of policy E16 of the EDLP.

Although visitors staying in the accommodation may walk or cycle for recreational purposes, including to the ‘[address] HQ,’ and some visitors may arrive by train and taxi, other visitors will be likely to rely on the private car to travel to and from the site, for holiday excursions, and to use local facilities. [name] 33 encourages tourist development, it states that tourist growth should be in sustainable locations. The lack of access other than by the private car means that the site is not in a sustainable location and would harm the strategy for promoting tourism growth in sustainable locations.

Policy UEM4 of the Uplyme Neighbourhood Plan 2017 (UNP) addresses proposals for the development and expansion of tourist related businesses subject to various criteria being met. The first criterion of the policy requires that proposals are proportionate to ‘existing activity.’ The extract from the Neighbourhood Plan examiner’s comments provided by the Council indicates that the reference to ‘existing activity’ in the policy was part of the examiner’s reasoning to conclude that the policy relates only to existing tourism businesses in the parish. I have found no compelling reason to arrive at a different conclusion.

Although the evidence indicates that a Certificate of Proposed Lawful Development has been granted by the Council for the limited use of the main dwelling, its garden and the cabin for a forest school based programme, I am not aware of the full details of that use. The Council states that the certificate was granted on the basis that the use was incidental to the residential occupation and did not amount to a material change of use. Whilst the cabin has also been used for holiday lettings since 2024, the evidence indicates that this does not have the benefit of planning permission. As result, I am not satisfied from the evidence before me that the site is used for an existing, lawful tourism business.

Self-contained holiday accommodation with the facilities to enable day-to-day domestic living, as is the case with the appeal scheme, are a form of residential use. Even though EDLP policy D8 and UNP policy UHG5 allow for the conversion of rural buildings for residential use subject to various criteria being met, policy D8 requires that, for residential proposals, it must be established that the development is located close to a range of accessible services and facilities. Policy UHG5 also requires, amongst other matters, that access considerations are satisfied. The lack of safe and convenient access to a range of accessible services means that access considerations are not satisfied and the use as holiday accommodation therefore does not comply with policies D8 or UHG5.

Therefore, for the reasons given, the site is not in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies concerned with holiday accommodation in the countryside. This results in conflict with [name] 5B and 33 and EDLP policy E16 regarding the location of holiday accommodation and the accessibility of new development.

The absence of a safe, direct, comfortable walking route to services and facilities, including public transport, also results in conflict with Strategic Policy TR01 of the East Devon Local Plan 2020-2042 Regulation 19 [name] 2025. Draft policy SE10 applies to new tourist attractions, facilities or temporary accommodation in the open countryside to meet an identified and evidenced demand. The evidence before me does not demonstrate that the proposed accommodation would meet an identified demand. As a consequence, it would not comply with draft policy SE10.

However, as the draft plan is still at the consultation stage it is not clear from the evidence whether the draft policies are the subject of unresolved objections which may result in them being changed. Having regard to paragraph 49 of the Framework, the conflict with the draft plan therefore carries limited weight against the appeal scheme.

The site lies within the East Devon National Landscape. It is located within the grounds of the existing dwelling and is screened from public views by boundary vegetation and trees. No alterations are proposed to the form or appearance of the building. As a consequence, the use for holiday accommodation does not cause harm to the distinctive qualities or scenic beauty of the National Landscape, the statutory purposes of which I have a duty to seek to further2.

I am aware of two other sites in the vicinity where the Council has granted planning permission for holiday accommodation. However, I am not aware of the full planning context of those sites, their location or the details of those schemes. I have considered the appeal on its individual merits.

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.