Appeal 6000966

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the open countryside designated as an Area of [name] (‘AGLV’), including the setting of the [name] and [address] registered park and gardens, and (ii) the effect of the proposed northerly access to [site address] on the existing mature oak tree in the roadside hedgebank.

In its objection to the appeal scheme on this issue, the Council’s Notice of Refusal refers to the ‘suburban character’ of the proposed development as causing harm to its surroundings sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. The Officer’s Report and the Council’s appeal statement argue that both the proposed layout of the development and the design of the buildings would contribute to this harm and thereby conflict with local and national policies for the protection of the countryside and the safeguarding of designated heritage assets.

The terms ‘suburban character’, or ‘overly suburban’ referred to in the Council’s appeal statement, are not defined in more detail. However, it is explained that the proposal gives the ‘impression of a small housing estate’ on the site rather than for the most part one large building - as was the case with the original ‘ [site address] ’; the replica replacement approved by permission ref. 19/02540/FUL, and the terrace of five dwellings allowed under ref. 21/00459/FUL. From its design I consider that the latter scheme would have more of the appearance of a large country house, and therefore more in keeping with the history of the site. Appeal Decision Ref. 6000966

For the appellant it is argued that the design and appearance of the appeal scheme is based on permission ref. 21/00459, with gabled roofs to the south elevations of the three houses and perpendicular roof sections running east to west. It is considered that the scale of the development is in keeping with the original building of [site address] with similar external materials, and furthermore that [site address] is characterised by a mix of designs including ‘modern stand-alone single dwellings’.

However, whilst I have given these points careful consideration, in this instance it is the separation of the built form into three detached houses of a substantial size, along with the proposed holiday let, that inevitably undermines any positive aspects of the development such as the choice of external materials. As the Council says, the proposed row of the dwellings would give a perception of a small housing estate. And individually, their internal layout - not unreasonably designed to achieve the optimum amount and most convenient arrangement of living space - would have the consequence of the exterior of the houses failing to have any semblance of a rural character and appearance. The integral garages of Plots 2 and 3 would give further emphasis to the suburban appearance. I also agree with the Council that a similar effect would result from the alterations to both access points including, respectively, the formality and enclosure effect of timber gates with brick piers and an area of tarmac for the pull in of vehicles.

Accordingly, I consider that the appeal scheme is more typical of an infill development in a medium density suburban location. More often than not, such developments are ‘formulaic’ in that they comprise a developer’s standard or generic house types with little or no amendments to be in keeping with the local vernacular. This does not necessarily mean that they are of a demonstrably poor design; rather that they are unsympathetic to their context and could be seen anywhere in the suburbs of towns and cities throughout the country.

The appeal scheme is a case in point as the proposal would fail to be sufficiently in keeping with site’s history and the rural character of [site address] . Having approached the appeal site from the A380 to the north as opposed to the much shorter route from Dawlish, I was able to see a variety of dwellings, including the single cottages and farmsteads to which the Council refers. However, there was nothing resembling the appeal proposal, and its layout combined with the appearance of the buildings would reasonably be perceived as being harmfully incongruous in this location. The development would be visible in the public domain from both [site address] and [address] and the importance of safeguarding the landscape character of the area in these views is given further emphasis by this area of countryside’s status as an AGLV.

Turing to the heritage considerations, the appellant’s case is essentially that there is no inter-visibility between the appeal site and the locations of [name] and [address], and that accordingly no harm would arise as a result of the appeal scheme. However, the Council has provided evidence that the southern edge of the appeal site does intersect with the Castle registered park and garden, whilst that of the [address] lies only 190m to the south.

The appellant has referred to other modern developments close to Stonelands, but I have no details of their planning history and my appraisal must focus on the impact of development on the appeal site. The salient point is that I am satisfied the appeal site falls within the setting of these designated heritage assets. And as I Appeal Decision Ref. 6000966 have already concluded that the appeal scheme would be perceived as being out of keeping with the rural surroundings that have the status of an AGLV designation, it must follow that harm would be caused to these assets with at least some loss of their significance.

Whilst this harm would be ‘less than substantial’ I do not consider that it would be outweighed by the temporary economic benefits of their construction. Moreover, the benefit of the additional housing cannot be argued in this instance as this is already achievable through the implementation of a ‘fall-back’ position in the form of either permissions ref. 19/02540/FUL or ref. 21/00459 referred to in paragraph 4 above.

In summary on issue (i) I find that the proposed development, by reason of its suburban character, would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the open countryside designated as an AGLV and to the setting of the registered park and gardens of [name] and [address]. The fall-back of the extant permissions carries little or no weight in the appellant’s favour, because having examined the details of those proposals I regard them both as having a positive rather than a negative impact as regards issue (i).

In the light of this finding, I am satisfied that the proposed development would be in harmful conflict with Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 (‘the Local Plan’) Policies S1, S2, S22, EN2A & EN5. As the emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040 is at an advanced stage, Policies EN4 & EN17 of that document will similarly preclude the grant of permission. At the national level, there would additionally be conflict with Government policy in paragraphs 135c), 212, 213a) & 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024. Effect of [name] on the Oak tree.

Turning more briefly to main issue (ii), I note that there was initially some misunderstanding by the case officer as to details of the scheme that would impact on the oak tree near the northern access. In the event I am satisfied that [name]. 25/01/13A shows that adequate visibilty splays could be achieved with the oak tree in its existing position and the adjacent hedgebank improved by hedgerow planting. Furthermore, the Arboricultural Impact Assessment confirms that the root protection area of the tree will not be affected by the introduction of hard surfaces for the access. With this in mind, I consider that in the event of permission being granted a condition could be imposed to ensure the safeguarding of the future well-being of this tree, now protected by a tree preservation order.

I therefore find that the appeal scheme would cause no harmful conflict with Local Plan Policy EN12 or with Policy EN16 of the emerging Local Plan such as to warrant a refusal of consent on this issue.

[name] have found in the appellant’s favour on issue (ii) this does not outweigh my findings and conclusions on the soundness of the Council’s objections to the appeal scheme in respect of issue (i). Accordingly, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal fails.