Appeal 6000742

The appeal is dismissed.

I have dealt with another appeal1 at the same location as this. The appeals have been assessed on their individual merits and in the context of the relevant legislation applicable to them.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. Notwithstanding this, the appellant confirms that the description of development is referenced on the Council’s decision notice; that being permission in principle for conversion of building/garage to dwelling. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.

Planning Practice Guidance advises that permission in principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) 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. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

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. 1 Ref 6000741

The appeal site comprises a low-key linked garage and store building which are part of a former nursery. Unlike the scattering of road fronted properties in the surrounding area, the appeal buildings are positioned on higher ground. Although physically close to some properties below, it is this elevated positioning amongst other redundant small buildings further upslope that sets the appeal site apart as having rural, rather than residential qualities. Save for these pockets of development, the surrounding area is mainly characterised by its bountiful publicly accessible multi use trails, set within a rolling natural landscape. All of this is surrounded by the city backdrop it connects well with. Accordingly, it has been locally designated as part of the city’s green infrastructure network.

Having paid regard to previous appeal decisions at this site2, I took the opportunity to walk some of the aforementioned trails. Unlike the previous appeals, it is acknowledged that the small site area and likely introduction of the lawful fencing would significantly reduce the perception of additional residential development when viewed from elevated ground to the south.

However, the views from [site address] to the east at a field gate and from numerous breaks in vegetation along the public footpath that runs adjacent to the appeal site are of notable significance. From these vantage points, the appeal buildings are clearly discernible as distinct elements within the landscape, contrasting with the houses situated below. That said, their presence currently draws only fleeting attention due to their subdued and somewhat redundant character. By contrast, the introduction of a residential use, regardless of any refinement at the technical details stage, would inevitably bring increased activity, movement, and intensity. Such changes would harmfully erode the sense of tranquillity and rural character that presently defines this part of Ludwell Valley Park.

The conversion of buildings is supported within policies H2 and LS1 of the Exeter Local Plan First review (LP), and there is little convincing evidence this would not apply to a residential use. Even so, there is still a requirement within them, Policy CP16, Objectives 8 and 9 of the Exeter City Council Core Strategy, and LP Policy DG1 that character, quality, and local distinctiveness is maintained. The other permissions in the area, and case law highlighted by the appellant is noted. However, in these particular circumstances, the harm to the character of the area means there would be overall conflict with the aforementioned LP policies in this regard.

For the reasons given, the site is not a suitable location for residential development having regard to its location, land use, and the amount of development.

It is common ground that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, where the current supply is said to be about 4.3 years.

Paragraph 11 (d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that where the required supply cannot be demonstrated, permission 2 APP/Y1110/W/22/3296927 & APP/Y1110/W/24/3337298 should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

However, 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, making efficient use of land and securing well-designed places. Such provisions identified in footnote 9 are set out in paragraphs 115 and 135. These policies aim to support developments that maintain a strong sense of place and are sympathetic to an area’s prevailing character and setting. This is consistent with those policies described in the LP above and therefore the identified conflict can be given substantial weight.

The social benefits of housing delivery carry significant weight, yet these are tempered by the fact that the dwelling would make a very modest contribution to addressing the housing shortfall. The scheme would also bring some limited economic benefits to the construction industry and thereafter through additional consumer spending in the local economy. Furthermore, it would make use of an existing building in a well-connected location.

Against any such benefits I need to balance the adverse impacts. The need to deliver sustainable patterns of growth is an important consideration and one which is embedded in the Framework. The harm arising to the prevailing character of the Valley Park would run contrary to the social and environmental objectives of sustainable development. Overall, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. As such, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out within Framework paragraph 11.

The appeal site is within the zone of influence of the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area, and the associated mitigation payment is acknowledged. However, as the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons, it is not necessary for the matter to be explored any further.

For the reasons given and having had regard to the development plan, material considerations, including the Framework, the appeal should be dismissed.