Appeal 6001016

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the setting and significance of [site address] , a [name] listed building, having regard to the contribution made by the existing tree belts; and • whether the proposed dwellings would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, having regard to the proximity of retained trees.

[site address] is an Edwardian country house of architectural and historic interest. Its significance derives from its architectural composition, its internal plan form and its relationship with the surviving elements of the former estate landscape. The historic approach to the house, originally a long, wooded carriage drive, was deliberately designed to create a sense of progression, enclosure and anticipation before the house is revealed. Although the estate has been reduced by later development, the remaining tree-lined section of the drive still performs this function and remains a legible and meaningful component of the asset’s setting.

The woodland belts flanking the drive are therefore not incidental vegetation. They are the last surviving structural element of the designed approach and contribute materially to the ability to appreciate the listed building in its intended landscape context. Their collective presence, scale and enclosure effect are integral to the significance of the asset.

The appellant’s Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) identifies that a high proportion of the ash within areas A2, A4 and A5 exhibit symptoms consistent with ash dieback. The AIA categorises many of these stems as [name] and recommends their removal, stating that selective felling would leave remaining stems vulnerable to windthrow and sequential failure. The AIA therefore concludes that large-scale clearance is necessary and that the proposed development layout represents a sustainable arboricultural solution.

I acknowledge the presence of ash dieback and the need for ongoing management. However, the AIA does not provide a long-term management strategy demonstrating that wholesale clearance is the only viable option, nor does it explore alternative approaches such as phased removal, coppicing, pollarding or reinforcement planting. The Council’s Tree Officer highlights that ash dieback does not automatically justify the removal of entire belts, and that appropriate management can retain the woodland character while addressing safety concerns.

Moreover, the AIA treats the belts largely as collections of individual stems assessed for physiological condition. It does not fully address their group value, their historic function or their contribution to the significance of the listed building. Even if some ash require removal over time, the AIA does not demonstrate that the belts as a whole cannot be retained, restructured or replanted in a way that preserves their contribution to the setting of [site address] .

The proposal would introduce four new dwellings, two on each side of the driveway, requiring the removal of substantial areas of the woodland belts. This would fundamentally alter the character of the approach. The sense of enclosure, the filtered views and the gradual reveal of the house, all key components of the designed experience, would be eroded.

The appellant argues that the approach has already been compromised by 1990s housing and that the existing trees are of poor quality. While the approach has undoubtedly been shortened, the remaining section still performs an important role in screening the house, creating a sense of anticipation and preserving the legibility of the historic estate. The fact that the setting has been eroded in the past does not justify further erosion.

The proposed dwellings would introduce built form, domestic activity, parking areas and lighting into a location that is currently characterised by woodland enclosure. The resulting change would be immediate, permanent and visually prominent. It would diminish the ability to appreciate the house in its intended landscape context.

The proposal would cause harm to the setting of the [name] listed building and thereby the significance of the designated heritage asset. In terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the harm identified to the heritage asset in question would be less than substantial. The Framework requires development proposals which lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellant identifies the provision of four dwellings and the potential for staff accommodation as benefits. The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, and the delivery of additional housing therefore attracts weight as a public benefit. However, the scale of the contribution would be modest, and sufficient evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that staff accommodation must be located on this specific part of the estate, that alternative locations were considered or that the functioning of the site depends on on-site residential provision. The benefit therefore attracts only moderate weight.

The proposal would also generate short-term economic benefits during construction and longer-term economic and social benefits through the occupiers’ contribution to the local economy and community life. Nevertheless, given the limited scale of the scheme, these benefits carry only limited weight in the overall heritage balance. Additionally, the proposed replacement planting is mitigation rather than a public benefit.

Weighing against these benefits is the less than substantial harm to the setting and historic significance of [site address] . I acknowledge that the appeal site is not widely visible from the public realm and that the scale of the proposed development is modest. Whilst this means that the extent of harm to the designated heritage asset’s setting is moderate, the Framework establishes that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. This great weight is reinforced by the statutory duty under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which requires considerable importance and weight to be given to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings.

When weighing the great weight to be given to the conservation of the designated heritage asset against the collective moderate weight to be attributed to the benefits that would arise from the scheme, including the modest contribution to housing supply in a district with a recognised shortfall, the overall benefit would not be sufficient to outweigh the identified harm to the setting of the designated

For these reasons, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the setting and significance of [site address] , a [name] listed building, having regard to the contribution made by the existing tree belts. Consequently, it conflicts with Policy EN9 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 – 2031 (LP), which requires development to preserve or enhance the setting of listed buildings. It also conflicts with Policy EB2 of the Exmouth Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2031, insofar as that policy seeks to safeguard the heritage qualities of the area.

The Council is concerned that the proximity of retained trees to the proposed dwellings would result in poor levels of daylight and outlook, particularly to ground-floor living spaces and private amenity areas. The evidence before me indicates that several retained trees would stand very close to the proposed buildings, with canopies extending over roofs and gardens.

Ash dieback is a progressive disease. Trees may decline unpredictably, shed limbs or require intervention at short notice. The appellant has not demonstrated that the retained trees would remain structurally sound or that their long-term management has been fully considered. This uncertainty would exacerbate the sense of enclosure and overshadowing experienced by future occupiers.

The Council also raises concerns that the proximity of the dwellings to retained trees would lead to future pressure for unnecessary pruning or felling. Based on the submitted plans and my site observations, I consider this concern well-founded. The juxtaposition between the proposed dwellings and the retained trees, particularly those affected by ash dieback, would be uncomfortable and likely unsustainable in the long term.

The appellant suggests that tree management could be controlled through conditions. However, conditions cannot reasonably prevent future occupiers from seeking works to trees that they perceive as overbearing, unsafe or inconvenient. The likely outcome would be incremental erosion of the remaining tree belts, further diminishing the setting of the listed building.

For these reasons, the proposal would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, having regard to the proximity of retained trees. Consequently, it conflicts with Policy D1 of the LP, which requires development to provide a good standard of amenity.

It has been established that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. In these circumstances, Paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework states that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Designated heritage assets are an example of such areas/assets.

The proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the setting of the [name] listed building. As set out in my heritage balance, I have found that the collective public benefits associated with the proposed development would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm identified to the designated heritage asset. The harm to the significance of the heritage asset, which is not outweighed by the public benefits, means that the heritage policies in the Framework provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

As such, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at Paragraph 11 and the policies of the Framework do not indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.