Appeal 6000821

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are (i) whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the provisions of local policy and its accessibility to services and facilities; and (ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy ST07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan (LP) sets out the Council’s development strategy for the rural area. It is focused on local centres and villages with land outside these settlements defined as being in the countryside. The appeal site is closest to Barnstaple, which is not identified in LP Policy ST07. However, there is little to suggest that land outside it is not countryside for the purposes of the LP. In such areas, development is limited to meet local economic and social needs, rural building reuse and that necessarily restricted to a countryside location.

The Council’s transport strategy is set out in LP Policy ST10. To reduce the environmental and social impacts of transport, this policy aims to lessen the need to travel by car, supporting alternative sustainable travel options.

The appeal site comprises a piece of greenfield land between a property and agricultural barn. This barn has an extant permission for its replacement with a dwelling. While the appeal site’s grass has been cut, it covers a notably large area that seamlessly transitions into the expansive wider agricultural field above. As such, it does not present as a form of closely associated garden area, and there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that this is its established use. In that respect, it is not for me to determine the lawfulness or otherwise of a use of land with this appeal.

It is acknowledged that there are some properties dotted along the lane that connects to Barnstaple. However, the lane covers a long stretch where there are several undeveloped gaps along it. The absence of continuous built form adds to the sense one has left the urban area and reached countryside.

In that context, to reach the built-up area, future occupiers would need to navigate long, narrow lanes where pavements and street lighting is sporadic. While relatively flat, during dark or unfavourable weather conditions, this would nevertheless not be an inviting option for many members of society including those with young children or the less abled. While cycling would be an option for some, it would not be suitable for everyone. As such, the walking or cycling connections from the appeal site to the town are not prioritised.

Passing places are fairly limited along the connecting lanes, though are not totally absent. Furthermore, given the lanes serve a small number of properties, I do not agree with the Council that the proposal would be likely to increase traffic to the extent that harm would be caused to the safety or functioning of the road network. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with LP Policy DM05. Notwithstanding this, it is likely that most trips would be made using private vehicles, which conflicts with LP Policy ST10.

I therefore conclude on this main issue that despite the findings on highway safety, the site is not in a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the provision of local policy and its accessibility to services and facilities. As such, there would be conflict with LP policies ST07 and ST10.

Although the farm may have ceased operations some time ago, with the nearby barns sold on, I do not agree with the appellant that the appeal site is taking on the appearance of a residential space. On the contrary, even taking into account the nearby permission, the appeal site and its surroundings are part of a network of fields that exhibit strong rural qualities.

The proposed bungalow would have a lower ridge height than the host property and would not extent northwards into the more expose rising ground. Furthermore, assuming the adjacent barn were to be replaced with a property, this would create a row of 3 residential units. However, even though the proposal would fill the gap between existing built form, it would not be within the town. Instead, it would lead to the incremental erosion of an open rural landscape setting. Even if the appeal site were to be classed as garden, the scheme’s urbanising effect would be most out of place. As a consequence, it would fail to add to the overall quality of the area.

For these reasons, I conclude on this main issue that the proposal would harmfully affect the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with LP policies ST14 and DM04 which, together in this respect, and amongst other things, seek to protect and enhance north Devon’s natural environment, reinforcing the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed.

It is understood that the appellant intends for the property to provide a suitable home tailored to their accessibility and health requirements. In that respect, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. However, there is no compelling evidence to demonstrate the proposal would be the only or optimal way to secure the equal rights of all persons to live in the community. [name] take this matter seriously, it can only be given limited weight.

The support from the Town Council is noted, though this is not a reason in itself to allow unacceptable development.

It is common ground that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, where there is a current supply of 4.6 years. Paragraph 11 (d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that where the required supply cannot be demonstrated, permission 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 and making efficient use of land. Such provisions are identified in footnote 9 and set out in paragraphs 115 and 129, amongst others. I have concluded above that the proposal would not prioritise sustainable transport modes that limit future car use, which conflicts with these policies. Paragraphs 129 and 135 say, in part, that decisions should support and be sympathetic to an area’s prevailing character and setting. I have found there to be some conflict in this regard.

The Council’s spatial strategy aims to avoid a dispersed settlement pattern, minimising conflicts with the principles of sustainable development. Therefore, it is in accordance with the policies of the Framework. For these reasons, the conflict with LP Policy ST07 does not fall away, but rather, carries significant weight in this appeal.

The social benefits of housing delivery can be afforded significant weight, yet these are softened by the fact that the dwelling would make a very modest contribution to addressing the slight housing shortfall. The scheme would also bring some limited economic benefits to the construction industry and thereafter through extra consumer spending in the local economy.

Additionally, as it has not been shown how self-build housing could be secured, the support in paragraph 129 in the Framework for different types of housing carries little weight. In that context, as I cannot be certain that the development would be delivered as self-build housing, and in the absence of the necessary supporting information, it is not known whether or not the requirements and possible benefits with respect to biodiversity net gain could be achieved. As such, I attach little weight to any environmental gains.

Against any of the aforementioned benefits I need to balance the adverse impacts. The need to deliver sustainable patterns of growth is an important consideration and one which is enshrined in the Framework. The harm arising from the relatively poor access to services and facilities by sustainable transport modes, and to the open countryside, 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.

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.

I have concluded above that although there would be no highway safety concerns, the proposal is nevertheless in an unsuitable location and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. As such, there would be overall conflict with the development plan. Furthermore, even when considered cumulatively, there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.