Appeal 6001069

The appeal is dismissed.

The existing barn on the site has an extant approval for its conversion into a dwelling as part of a prior approval which was allowed at appeal1. There is a real prospect that this could be implemented and as such it is a material consideration in my assessment, it will therefore be referred to with the main issues below as the fallback position. The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • The effect of the use of the proposed access on highway safety.

The appeal site is located within open countryside, although it sits adjacent to [site address] , a detached dwelling with several outbuildings. The land is elevated above the road, offering attractive views across the surrounding rural landscape from both the highway and the site itself. While there are other residential properties nearby, their set-back position means that only their driveways are visible from the road.

Access to the site is currently gained through the driveway to [site address] and then through its garden. The site contains a single-storey barn featuring a mix of flat and gently pitched roof forms. The building is positioned close to mature trees that define part of the site’s boundary. 1 APP/K1128/W/23/3321395

The appeal proposal would introduce a single-storey dwelling on the site, along with a new access. Compared with the dwelling permitted under the prior approval, the proposed building would have a larger footprint and greater height. In addition, it would be positioned slightly further up the slope, resulting in a more prominent presence within the landscape.

The siting of the proposed building would neither directly address the road nor follow a similar orientation to the existing dwelling or the structure labelled as an annexe on the site plan. This unconventional positioning is further emphasised by the irregular shape of the plot. Although the existing house and garden form an arbitrary cut-out from the wider field, the broader land parcel is generally rectangular in form. The proposed site boundaries to the north and east do not appear to relate well to any existing natural or built features on the site.

It is acknowledged that the field pattern in the vicinity of the site comprises a variety of shapes and sizes. However, the introduction of a new dwelling and the resulting subdivision of the field would make this irregular arrangement more conspicuous and would not reflect the established historic field patterns.

The proposed boundary treatment would comprise a 2-metre-high fence, and the submitted plan also refers to mature trees merging into a Devon bank with coppice hedging, although no detailed specification has been provided. Even if softened by planting, the use of fencing would create a visually hard edge to the site, and its seemingly arbitrary alignment would be out of keeping with the existing boundary arrangements in the surrounding area.

The existing hedge bank and trees would provide some screening and potentially new planting could add further benefit. However, the proposed house would still be visible from the road and to some extent through the new access.

The proposed dwelling has a simple form with limited architectural detailing, giving it an appearance akin to a small agricultural building. Its design does not reflect the character of the existing buildings at [site address] , and I have not been made aware of any similar structures in the surrounding area. While its understated appearance may be viewed as complementary to the rural setting, it does little to enhance the visual quality of the site.

When compared with the fallback position, the increased scale of the proposed building, together with its siting, would result in a greater visual impact. Even if some of the structure could be set into the slope through groundworks, it would nevertheless appear more prominent than the existing building. I acknowledge that the fallback building, when converted, would also have limited architectural merit. However, its appearance as a conversion, its position closer to the hedge, and its more restrained form mean that it would have a lesser visual presence overall.

Taking account of all the above, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would not represent a betterment when compared to the fallback position. As such it would conflict with Policy DEV20 and DEV23 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan and the Framework. Amongst other things, these ensure that development proposals meet good standards of design, contribute positively to the landscape, having proper regard to the wider development context, styles, and materials, and achieve well designed places.

The fallback position utilises the existing site access, whereas the appeal proposal introduces a new entrance closer to the proposed dwelling. This new access is situated only a short distance from the original point of entry. The lane adjacent to the site is single track, characterised by established hedgerows and hedge bank on both sides.

The reason for refusal states that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed access would be safe particularly with regards to visibility and as a result does not comply with the Manual for Streets and Policy DEV29 of the JLP.

The relevant parts of Policy DEV29 relate to the impacts of development on the wider transport network and the requirement for a development to provide safe and satisfactory traffic movement and vehicular access to and within a site. There is no specific reference to Manual for Streets in the policy, nevertheless, it provides a useful standard for assessing highway safety.

The road running alongside the site is subject to the national speed limit. Although my observations during the site visit represent only a snapshot in time, I noted that the road was not heavily trafficked and that vehicle speeds appeared to be low. Similar observations were recorded by the highways consultant during their review of the site.

I acknowledge that actual vehicle speeds along the road are likely to be lower than the national speed limit due to its narrow width. The Highways Technical Note indicates that speeds are unlikely to exceed 30 miles per hour (mph). At this speed, a visibility splay of 43 metres from a 2.4-metre set-back is required, and it has been suggested that achieving this would necessitate significant hedge removal.

The Highways Technical Note indicates that a 2.4 x 31-metre visibility splay is achievable and would be appropriate for vehicle speeds in the region of 25 mph. It is suggested that this provision is suitable for the context of the site and is comparable with, or in some cases better than, other existing accesses along the same road.

The Highways Authority in its comments on the application state that the visibility splays have been plotted incorrectly and insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the access is safe. No additional information has been provided to address this matter.

Even if I were to accept that it would be appropriate for a lower speed to be used to inform the visibility splay, it has not been confirmed that the scheme can meet this standard.

However, despite concerns about the proposed access, the Highways Authority in its comments on the appeal have acknowledged that it would provide an equal to or better arrangement than the existing access. Further to this it accepts that whilst a request was made for better visibility it is acknowledged that there would be no detriment to highway safety.

Paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.

Overall, while the evidence suggests the proposal may not fully align with the Manual for Streets, the proposed access is deemed at least as safe as the existing arrangement. As this existing access represents a realistic fallback position, I cannot conclude the development would result in a significant impact on highway safety. Therefore, the proposal would not conflict with Policy DEV29 of the JLP which seeks amongst other things to provide safe access for developments.

The proposal may meet policy requirements in respect of ecology, flood risk, and climate change. However, these weigh neutrally in the planning balance.

The Council is not currently able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing. The proposal may provide an additional dwelling which would make a small contribution to housing supply. However, the fallback proposal would also make the same contribution and would be less harmful in terms of the impact on character and appearance. Further to this the fallback proposal provided a one bed dwelling which there is an undersupply of in the locality. The proposed scheme is for a two-bed dwelling which would not meet the local need in any significantly different manner. As a result, I give this matter limited weight.

I acknowledge that the approved scheme does not provide a dedicated vehicular access; however, the continued use of the existing access was found to be acceptable. While the creation of a new access may represent an improvement, this consideration carries only limited weight in my overall assessment. With regard to parking and garden space, these are adequately demonstrated on the fallback plans. Although the current proposal may offer some enhancements, the associated benefits are modest.

I accept there is some local support for the development, and reference is made to the benefits to the hedge, however, this does not outweigh the visual harms identified.

There are some benefits to the proposal which are referenced above, however, overall, these are limited in extent. On balance I have not found harm in respect of highway safety given the comparison with the existing access and the fallback solution, however, this attracts limited weight in the planning balance.

In conclusion the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with policies within the local plan. This harm would not be outweighed by the benefits. Despite the proposal not conflicting with some local plan policies, the proposed development is regarded as conflicting with the development plan as a whole.

Material considerations, including the Framework do not indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Having considered all other matters raised, I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.