Appeal 6000734

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council. An application for costs was also made by the Council against the appellant. These applications will be the subject of separate decisions.

The proposal is for permission in principle (PIP). The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The PIP consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or PIP stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second, ‘technical details consent’ (TDC) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. The amount of residential development should be expressed as a range, indicating the minimum and maximum number of new dwellings. In this case, the description limits the range to no less than 6 and no more than 9 dwellings, and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

A unilateral undertaking (UU) made as a deed under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA90), dated 2 October 2025, was submitted by the appellant to deal with the effects of the proposal on the [name] and Estuaries Special Area of Conservation and the Tamar Estuaries Complex Special Protection Area (the [name]). The Council has confirmed that, following receipt of the UU, the third reason for refusal has been adequately addressed. I return to this further below.

The second reason for refusal refers to the potential effects of the proposal on a retained Oak Tree, protected by way of Tree Preservation Order, which appears to constrain the only identified point of access to the site. The same tree is also mentioned in the first reason for refusal. Despite that a ‘New Tree Report’ was intended to be attached at Appendix 4 of the appellant’s Statement, this report was belatedly provided at final comments stage. In any event, I reserve this aspect to one which would be more appropriately considered at the TDC stage.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site is situated to the west of [site address] , a rural village in the [name] and Villages policy area under the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (adopted 2019) (JLP). Under paragraph 5.10 of the JLP, [site address] is considered to be a sustainable village which has a limited but vital provision of services and amenities. Policy TTV25 promotes development within sustainable villages, and where villages do not have a Neighbourhood Plan, support will be given for development that meets the identified needs of local communities and development which responds positively to the indicative housing figures set out in Figure 5.8. The indicative housing figure for [site address] over the JLP plan period is given as 10 dwellings in total.

A key issue between the parties is whether the site is within or outside of the village. Having regard to the views of both parties and my assessment of the site on the ground, particularly having regard to the boundaries formed by adjoining residential gardens, it is more appropriate to consider the site as squaring off the extent of the village and thus more appropriately within the village in terms of its proximity to facilities and services, rather than adjoining, near to or isolated therefrom.

Notwithstanding the examples of allegedly similar cases provided by the Council1, my finding in respect of the location of the site within the village does not imply that all of the area within its confines is equally influenced by the suburban character of the adjoining built context. Certainly, much of the western extent of the site at a higher elevation is more influenced by the rural character of the adjoining countryside. The considerations as to whether development on those parts of the site would be appropriate at all or if so, in what form, are more relevant to the TDC stage and other policies of the development plan more concerned with the effects on the character and appearance of the area.

As such, I find that specifically in terms of the site’s location, the proposal complies with Policy TTV25 of the JLP, and also with SPT1, SPT2, TTV1 and TTV2 which set out the spatial strategy for locating development within the plan area. 1 Including appeal references APP/Q1153/W/21/3286032 and APP/K1128/W/23/3332491

The intended land use is exclusively for residential dwellings which is appropriate given the site’s location as part of a largely residential village and in close proximity of existing dwellings.

The number of dwellings proposed appears to be within the indicative limit considered suitable for [site address] under the JLP based on its location and access to facilities and services.

In terms of how those dwellings would be accommodated on site, under the PIP section on ‘Information’ in the PPG2, it states that existing sources of information and tools may be used to support decisions on whether a grant of permission in principle is appropriate, such as the development plan evidence base, historic environment records or landscape character assessments and external information sources. It goes on to state3 that bodies with an interest in the land proposed for a grant of PIP may volunteer additional information to give more certainty about how many dwellings the site is capable of supporting and whether mitigation of likely impacts that may result from development is possible.

A number of local residents and representatives have raised concerns that the site could not accommodate the amount of development proposed, even at the lower end of the range. The appellant’s Statement says that there would be no significant adverse impacts arising from the scheme such as neighbour or amenity impacts. However, limited detail has been offered to enable an assessment on the suitability of the site to accommodate the proposed number of dwellings taking account of the site’s size, topographical characteristics and its relationship with neighbouring dwellings.

From my site visit, I noted that the site was broadly in two parts. The main part of the site, south-southwest of Lilymoor, has a constrained point of access and an eastern boundary formed from a dwelling under construction broadly perpendicular to Lilymoor. The site has undulating levels but a main slope up from the east to the west. The dogleg part of the site to the north is tucked behind the substantial dwellings of Lilymoor and Evaview and is elevated in relation to their finished floor levels. Due to the elevation of this modestly proportioned part of the site and the openness of the intervening boundary, the relationship and views of the gardens and upper floor windows of Lilymoor and Evaview will inevitably present a constraint to development.

The Officer Report explains that, taken at face value, the 0.2ha site would be large enough to physically accommodate a minimum of 6 dwellings with car parking and garden space in compliance with the standards set out in the Joint Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document (2020). This assertion appears to be made with limited regard to the obvious site constraints and the rural characteristics of the surrounding area to which the Council’s evidence refers elsewhere.

As such, particularly given the lack of evidence to the contrary, and notwithstanding the Council’s view, I find that the number of dwellings, even at the lower end of the range, could not be adequately accommodated on site in a form 2 Paragraph: 042 [name]: 58-042-20170728 3 043 [name]: 58-043-20170728 that could preserve local distinctiveness whilst protecting the living conditions of future and neighbouring occupiers. For these reasons, the proposal would not accord with the policies4 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that, amongst other things, seek to ensure that developments function well and add to the overall quality of the area; are visually attractive; sympathetic to local character and history; establish or maintain a strong sense of place, and create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The appeal site is within the 12.3km Zone of influence (ZoI) for the [name] which are designated for their marine habitats such as sandbanks, estuaries, shallow inlets and bays, reefs and saltmarshes. These sheltered waters are home to the protected Allis shad migratory fish and other protected species. They also provide important feeding and roosting areas for little egret and avocets which are both protected birds.

New residential development within these ZoIs, in combination with other developments, will increase the human population which will intensify recreational pressures on the [name]. This in turn would result in contamination, physical damage, loss of habitat and bird disturbance. These impacts affect the status and distribution of key species and features and therefore act against the stated conservation objectives of the [name]. Whilst there would be no other potentially damaging direct impacts, harm to integrity of the [name] from the recreational effects cannot be ‘screened out’ under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017), as amended. As such, the following constitutes an appropriate assessment in respect of the same.

In recognition of the potential effects on integrity, the Council has developed the [name] and [name] and [name] 2019 (‘the [name]). This contains a package of mitigation measures which have been costed and divided by the anticipated housing supply within the ZOI to provide the level of financial contribution required per new dwelling to deliver the required mitigation.

The submitted UU commits the landowner to the paying of the contribution calculated with reference to the [name] prior to occupation of the dwellings. [name] has been entered into by the appellant and would ensure that the mitigation is capable of being delivered prior to the increase in recreational pressures occurring. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would not constitute habitats development5 and would not harm the integrity of the [name].

[name] have found that the location and land use would be acceptable in the context of the development plan, even taking the lower end of the proposed range, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the amount of development would not be appropriate for the site for the reasons outlined above. 4 Framework Paragraph 1357 5 Under the terms of under Article 5B of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended)

I note that the Council has accepted that it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land with appropriate buffer as required by the Framework, with around a 2.5 year supply available relative to the 5 year requirement. There are no other points of disagreement between the parties on the amount or sources of the available supply. As a consequence, the provisions of Framework paragraph 11 d) are engaged.

The Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and, given the absence of a five year supply of housing land, the provision of 6-9 dwellings would make a significant contribution to addressing the shortfall in supply. Equally, however, the Framework places emphasis on the need to provide high quality design which will improve an area's character and how a place functions, and to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future residents. When these are weighed in the balance, I find that the adverse effects of the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when the policies of the Framework are taken as a whole.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.