Appeal 6000858

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is described as planning in principle, whereas it is for permission in principle and I have determined the appeal on this basis. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this 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 Council is preparing the East Devon Local Plan 2020 to 2042 (ELP). It is currently at consultation stage and therefore attracts limited weight.

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; with particular regard to its accessibility to services and facilities, its effect on the character and appearance of the area, and the significance of heritage assets.

Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 (LP) provides an in-principle objection to the development of the site for dwellings, as it is outside the built-up area boundaries and outside of site specific allocations. Although the site is at the edge of a small village, it would meet the LP definition of a countryside location.

Services and facilities in Rewe are limited to a Church, Parish Hall and a garage for car sales and repairs. Therefore, future residents will be dependent on services and facilities elsewhere on a day to day basis. A private car or public transport would be required for such purposes, as it would be unrealistic to expect people to make such journeys on foot or bicycle on account of the lack of street lighting, footways, speed of traffic and distance that such journeys would involve.

The appeal site is however near to a bus stop, with good connections by bus to larger settlements including Exeter and Tiverton that have a wide range of services and facilities. The distance between the bus stop and the site is modest. It benefits from street lighting but does not feature dedicated footways for most of its length. It is a modest road fronted by development, driveways and small access roads which provide refuge from oncoming vehicles and means that those driving along this part of the lane would be alert to the potential presence of pedestrians. However, the lack of a footway would mean that it would not be safe and accessible for all, particularly for people who use a wheelchair or for anyone pushing an infant in a push chair.

Paragraph 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) establishes that housing in rural areas should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, and that where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. There is nothing before me to suggest that the provision of up to 4 dwellings would enhance or maintain the very limited services in Rewe, or those that exist in nearby villages. It is likely that future occupants would choose to travel by bus or private car to the big settlements of Exeter or Tiverton to meet their needs for reasons of convenience and choice. I do not therefore find any support for the proposal from Paragraph 83 of the Framework.

In summary, the proposal would not be suitably located for the development proposed. It would not accord with Strategy 7, Policies 5B and TC2 of the LP, or Policy TR01 of the ELP, which together seek to direct development to built up areas that will encourage and allow for efficient, safe and accessible means of transport with overall low impact on the environment, to minimise the need to travel by car.

The Council also referred to Policy TR02 of the ELP in its first refusal reason. This relates to protecting transport sites and routes and appears unrelated to the appeal proposal. It has not therefore been determinative.

The site is the roadside edge of a rural field, adjacent to the small developed area of Rewe. Rewe has a modest and disparate form, with the nearby services and facilities mentioned above in an area to the south which is separated from the developed area adjacent to the appeal site by undeveloped fields.

The proposal would fill the gap between the existing village edge and an outlying cottage and thus significantly extend the built form of the village in a linear fashion, away from its core, which for this part is centred on the road junction to the east. The existing cottage to the east of the site serves to define the edge of the existing developed area, particularly as it steps forward from other development and is prominent to view when looking towards it from the east. From the opposite perspective the garden of this cottage is extensive and verdant. It limits views of the settlement from the west such that development at the site would not have a strong spatial or visual relationship with the existing settlement and would thus result in a harmful extension of built form into an attractive area of countryside, that would not be well related to the existing developed area. The appellant suggests that the road fronting hedge could be retained. However, even with the hedge retained development at the site would be highly prominent to view.

In summary, the development of the site for up to four dwellings would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would thus not accord with Strategies 7 and 46, and Policy D1 of the LP, or Policies D01 and D02 of the ELP, which together seek to ensure that development proposals do not harm the character or appearance of the area.

A grade II listed cottage stands to either side of the appeal site. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA) requires the decision maker to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Hulford Cottage1 is to the east of the appeal site. It is a cob and thatch cottage that dates from the 17th century. It has a modest vernacular appearance. The undulating and soft quality of its principal materials, its historic appearance and form and surviving historic fabric are factors that contribute to its significance. It stands close to the edge of the lane, and its simple front elevation is prominent to view. It would have occupied an isolated position when originally built. Modern 20th century development now extends up to its eastern side; however, its rural setting and the longstanding relationship it has had with the surrounding undeveloped landscape since it was constructed remains to the north and west, and these characteristics contribute to its significance as a modest rural cottage.

Heathfield Cottage2 is to the west of the appeal site. It is also a simple cob and thatch cottage that dates from the 17th century. It also has a modest vernacular appearance, and the undulating and soft quality of its principal materials, its historic appearance and form and surviving historic fabric are factors that contribute to its significance. It fronts the lane and is surrounded by undeveloped agricultural land to all other sides. Its isolated rural position contributes to its significance as a modest rural cottage. 1 [name] 1317993 2 [name] 1163967

Additionally, as the cottages are near to each other and easily viewed together, they provide each other with an historic context that contributes to their significance.

In the field to the north of the site are two bowl barrows3, which are protected as a scheduled monument. These are funerary mounds that belong to the period 2400- 1500BC. They have suffered a reduction in height through cultivation, but have surviving mounds and associated ditches, and high archaeological potential. They are close to an earlier Neolithic long mortuary enclosure to the northwest. The concentration of all three monuments in one location is reported to be exceptional. They provide important information on the diversity of beliefs and social organisations amongst early prehistoric communities. They will contain archaeological and environmental evidence relating to the barrows and the landscape in which they were built.

The development of the site for residential purposes would have a significant impact on the character of the land immediately adjacent to the two listed cottages. [address], rather than standing at the end of the developed area of the settlement, it would exist between development, and thus a sense of its historic rural setting would be significantly eroded. This would have a harmful impact on its significance, as its character as an isolated rural cottage would be further diminished.

Development at the site would effectively connect [address] and [address] so that they would become part of the continuous swathe of linear development that has grown out from the road junction to the east. [address] would no longer stand in isolation, and thus its character and identity as a modest rural cottage would be harmed. Furthermore, their interrelationship would be significantly eroded, and as this is an aspect of their setting that contributes to their significance this would cause further harm.

As to the impact on the burial sites, Historic England and the Council’s Archaeologist suggest that more information is needed, in accordance with Paragraph 207 of the Framework. In this respect the submission falls well short of this requirement. No attempt is made to understand the potential impact of development at the site on the significance of these assets, including whether the site may possess associated archaeological interest, what is significant about the setting of the burial sites, and whether the open and undeveloped character of the appeal site and views across it from the lane and towards the burial sites are characteristics that contribute to their significance.

It is suggested that a sympathetic design could be developed that would have a neutral impact on the heritage assets, and this could be a matter for the technical details consent stage. However, for the reasons given I find this to be a fundamental and ‘in principle’ matter, as the development of the site for up to four dwellings in any form would have a significant impact on the interrelationship between the cottages and the surrounding undeveloped farmland. Furthermore, a sympathetic design would also not address the ‘in principle’ matters related to whether the site is suited for any residential development, which cannot be ascertained without a full understanding of the significance of the adjacent burial sites. 3 [name] 1016565

In summary, the development of the site would have a harmful impact on the significance of the adjacent listed buildings, and the information is insufficient to enable the impact on the significance of the burial sites to be understood. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the requirements of the LBCA. The proposal would thus not accord with Strategy 49 and Policies EN7, EN8 and EN9 of the LP, and Policies HE01 and HE02 of the ELP. Together these seek to ensure that development proposals conserve and enhance heritage and are based on an appropriate understanding of the site’s significance.

In terms of the Framework, the harm to the significance of the listed buildings would be a medium level of less than substantial harm, as the development of the site would have a significant impact on important characteristics of the setting of both buildings that contributes to their significance. Paragraph 215 of the Framework establishes that any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal is referred to as self-build. A s106 obligation is likely to be the most appropriate method of securing this. The PPG4 indicates that there is no scope to secure obligations at the permission in principle stage. Nevertheless, there is no legal reason why an obligation cannot be entered into at any time, with a trigger to link it to an associated technical details consent. The appellant suggests, and has submitted legal advice to this effect, that a reference to self-build in the description is sufficient, as the PPG states that a technical details consent must be in accordance with the permission in principle, and on that basis it would need to demonstrate how the development would be delivered as a genuine self-build scheme for it to be approved.

However, I note that there are no details to confirm that the appellant is entered on the Council’s self-build register, and that the Council’s most recent monitoring report says that there is not a shortfall of self-build sites. Therefore, the weight I give to the potential for the development to come forward as a genuine self-build scheme is modest.

The proposed dwellings are described as affordable. Tenure could be considered at the technical details consent stage and the Council’s housing enabling officer refers to demonstrable local need for affordable housing. Similar to the matter of self-build, a s106 obligation is likely to be the most appropriate method of securing this. However, with reference to the appellant’s legal advice regarding self-build, I give moderate weight to this benefit.

The proposal would deliver up to 4 dwellings. Paragraph 73 of the Framework recognises that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and suggests support for small self-build sites as well as using tools such as permission in principle to bring such sites forward. In the context of the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes and the extent of the Council’s undersupply this is a matter that weighs in favour of the proposal. There would also be a modest economic benefit from the construction work and as future occupants make use of services and facilities in the area. 4 Paragraph: 022 [name]: 58-[phone]

The public benefits attract reasonable weight when taken together. I am required by the Framework to give great weight to the conservation of heritage assets. As well as the identified harm to the significance of the cottages, the lack of information or understanding relating to the burial sites is an important matter that weighs against the proposal, and I find that the public benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh these matters.

For the reasons given I have found that the development of the site would not accord with the Council’s Policies that direct development to built-up areas with transport options that minimise the need to travel by car, and that the development of the site would harm the character and appearance of the area in general terms. The material considerations I have identified above are not sufficient to outweigh the proposal’s conflict with the development plan in relation to these main issues.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites. An exception to Paragraph 11 d) is provided where policies in the Framework that protect assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the proposal. Footnote 7 establishes that this includes designated heritage assets. I have found that the proposal would harm the significance of the listed buildings and would fall short of what is required in terms of understanding the impact upon the nearby scheduled ancient monument. It would not therefore accord with the Framework and Paragraph 11 d) would not be engaged.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.