Appeal 6001094

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of new dwelling, garage and car port and associated works (self build) at [name] 252038 125141, Alverdiscott, Barnstaple [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 1/0352/2025/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Although the Council’s reasons for refusal included concerns over foul water drainage, following the submission of further details by the appellant, the Council is no longer defending this matter.

Therefore, the main issues are: • Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for a new dwelling; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area;

The village of Alverdiscott comprises of only a very small number of buildings, primarily dwellings, but also two churches and some agricultural buildings. The village is primarily focused on the northern slope below the B3232 but also stretches across it. The appeal site sits at the edge of the village between the development on the slope and that on the opposite side of the B3232. I therefore consider it to be within the settlement for the purposes of the assessment below.

The appeal site is not within Schedule A or B land where development is primarily directed by Policy ST07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 (the LP). However, the policy goes on to also set out support for development that meets local needs within rural settlements that contain at least one prescribed service or community facility. Alverdiscott contains three of these facilities as listed under [name] 4.15. These are namely, two places of worship and a village hall. Alverdiscott therefore qualifies as a rural settlement for the purposes of [name] ST07 and DM24.

Paragraph 4.13 of the LP sets out an aim to provide a minimum of 2,000 rural dwellings across the rural area. Moreover, both parties agree that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Therefore, while the appellant has not identified a local need directly stemming from Alverdiscott, I still find that there is a degree of local need for residential development. Nevertheless, the proposal would not provide a dwelling for local occupancy as required by LP Policy DM24 and so does not follow the Council’s spatial strategy for residential development.

Although the settlement has some facilities it does not provide for work, education or the weekly shop. For these facilities and services, future occupiers would need to travel, a matter accepted by the appellant. However, the village does have access to bus routes to and from Barnstaple and Torrington. I have been provided with a copy of a timetable, and this shows that it would be viable to use for most needs. While the first bus to Torrington may not meet typical employment needs, it would be possible to both reach and leave Barnstaple around typical working hours.

Consequently, while it would not be possible to safely walk or cycle to services and facilities beyond those in Alverdiscott, future occupiers would not be solely reliant upon private motor vehicles to meet their daily needs.

Nevertheless, the proposal would not be restricted for local occupancy and so would not comply with the Council’s spatial strategy which directs only local occupancy housing to rural villages. Therefore, by way of its location, the proposal is contrary to the Council’s settlement hierarchy and so would not be suitable for a new dwelling. It would instead erode the Council’s spatial strategy and conflict with [name] ST07 and DM24 as outlined above.

Alverdiscott is primarily focused around the Church of [name] and [name], these are listed buildings and appear to be the oldest within the settlement. The Church of [name] is [name]* listed and is 15th century in origins. [name] is [name] listed and potentially stems from the 16th century. The significance of both of these buildings arise, at least in part, from their contribution to the legibility of Alverdiscott’s historic, form, location and context.

The rest of the settlement comprises largely of more modern dwellings of various architectural styles. These included both detached and semi-detached bungalows and two-storey dwellings. Although development has largely kept to the northern slope, as noted above, there is also development above the main slope on the opposite side of the B3232.

During my site visit, I noted examples of dwellings within the settlement that demonstrated the use of fenestration and materials, including dormers and render, similar to that proposed before me. Given the level of variety in the scale, design and form of the dwellings within Alverdiscott, the proposed dwelling would in this regard be sympathetic to, and reflect the character of, the local context.

Moreover, while it would likely be visible in views from the north, this is not uncommon for development within Alverdiscott given its location on and above the northern facing slope. As such, I find its elevation on the slope is not unacceptable.

The proposal includes the creation of a cutting within the slope. The terrace created for the proposed dwelling would sit above that of the neighbouring property [name]. Further, although the height of the building has been limited by accommodating the first floor within the roof, the overall height of the dwelling would extend above that of its neighbours. Nevertheless, I found Alverdiscott to be in part characterised by buildings rising irregularly up the slope and this proposal would sit within that context. Moreover, given the steep nature of the slope and the mature vegetation bounding the B3232, the proposal would largely remain screened from this direction.

[name] note the concerns regard the degree of proposed soft landscaping, this matter could be dealt with via a condition, and I note that the Council have suggested one. With such a condition, appropriate boundary treatments along the lane could be achieved. Mitigation for the part loss of the Cornish stone wall could also be secured through its extension as suggested in the submitted plans. In this way the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on the landscaping of the site, the surrounding area or the character of the rural lane. Similarly, I find the use of the site would not be inefficient but instead provide an appropriate transition between the village and its rural setting.

The level of more modern development around the noted listed buildings has formed a screen that has left them somewhat discrete from the appeal site. Consequently, it is unlikely that close views to or from the listed buildings would also incorporate the proposed dwelling. In distant views the proposal would, instead, sit comfortably amongst, and would be read with, the more modern development. Therefore, I am satisfied, given their relationship, that the proposal would have a neutral effect upon the assets’ settings and harm to their significance would not occur. Harm would also not occur more generally to the historic interest, form or appearance of Alverdiscott.

The proposal, by way of its location, design, materials and landscaping would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It therefore complies with [name] ST04, ST15, DM04, DM07, DM08a and DM24. These collectively, and amongst other issues, require proposals to be part of a closely grouped built form and of a high quality design that responds, and is sympathetic, to its surroundings. Particular attention is also made to the conservation of the historic environment and biodiversity networks. The proposal also complies with Framework Paragraphs 129, 135 and 139 that are similar to the policies above but additionally require the efficient use of land

Given the distance and acute angle between the proposed dwelling and [name], the proposal would not introduce overlooking to the detriment of the neighbouring occupier’s privacy. While some overlooking may be possible to the garden serving [name], this garden is at the front of the dwelling and views are possible from the adjoining lane. I therefore find this space is currently not private and the proposal would not unacceptably affect this. Given the distance between the proposal and [address], the significant change in land levels, and the intervening mature vegetation, I find no unacceptable loss of privacy would occur here either.

The proposed dwelling would be higher than its neighbours at both [address] and [name]. However, I am content that given the distance between the proposal and these properties, the dwelling would not be so tall as to result in overshadowing or a loss of light detrimental to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. [name] note concerns as to the loss of views, these are not regarded as a planning matter where they relate to private views from a window.

Although the access lane and junction on to the B3232 is substandard I am mindful that it is already used for vehicular access to properties along the lane. No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that this access has been unsafe. The proposal would introduce only one new dwelling and so any increase in movements would be modest. I find that this would not result in highway risks and note the Highway Authority found similarly.

The proposed site access is located close to the living/dining space and garden serving [name]. The garden and this end of the dwelling are already close to the existing lane where vehicular movements would generate noise. As above, the increase in movements is likely to be modest and I am content that the increase in noise would not be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers at [name].

As part of the appeal the appellant has provided percolation testing which has demonstrated the ground has a sufficient degree of permeability to suitably and safely accommodate the proposed package treatment plant.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council and the advice on planning conditions set out by the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In the interests of clarity and enforceability, I have made some changes to the wording.

For certainty, I have set out the timescale for the commencement of development. A condition is also necessary, for certainty and enforceability, requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

In the interests of character and appearance, and biodiversity, details of a landscaping scheme need to be submitted. It would not be necessary to require this information prior to the commencement of works as the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and its associated Tree Constraints Plan, already identifies those trees to be retained and requires their protection, which can be condition separately by way of the Aboricultural Impact Assessment. Also, for the purposes of biodiversity, it is necessary the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted ecological report.

Given the sloping nature of the site and narrowness of the access lane, a condition is required to ensure that an appropriate access is provided for works traffic and future occupiers. It is also required to protect the character and appearance of the lane.

The protection of the character and appearance of the surrounding area also provides clear justification for removing some permitted development rights. However, I have reduced the list of those suggested by the Council to only include those rights that would be likely to significantly alter the appearance, scale or character of the building in a way appreciable within the surrounding area.

It is also necessary to control the occupation of the building to ensure that it is a self-build given the exemption for biodiversity net gain given to these schemes. Given that other legislation cover noise and disturbance, attaching a condition controlling the working hours would not be necessary in this instance.

There is no dispute that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing and the proposal would provide one new self-build dwelling in contribution towards the Council’s housing land supply. It would also lead to a small and time limited economic benefit during the construction phase. Given the above, and the Government’s support for self-build housing, and although I am mindful of the proposal’s small scale, I attach these matters, at most moderate weight.

It is unlikely that locally there would be more than a very modest social or economic benefit stemming from future occupiers, given the distance of most services and facilities from the site. This would, nonetheless weigh in favour of the proposal.

The lack of harm to the character and appearance of the area, and from drainage is not a benefit in itself. These matters therefore weigh neutrally in my considerations.

Conversely, the proposal would conflict with the Council’s settlement hierarchy for the provision of new dwellings to the detriment of their spatial strategy and in conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. However, the proposal would provide only one dwelling in conflict with the plan. Moreover, the breach relates to the type of accommodation in an area where specific residential development can otherwise be supported. Therefore, given the scale of the proposal and the nature of the breach as outlined above, this matter attracts only modest weight.

Taking everything into account, I consider that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the application of Framework Paragraph 11d indicates that permission should be granted, and in the circumstances of this appeal, the material considerations above justify making a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings Nos 1690 01, 1690 20 rev A, 1690 21, 1690 30, 1690 35, and, CTC110423TPP rev A.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the [name] set out in the ‘Arboricultural Impact Assessment’ by Coastal Tree Consultancy (dated March 2025).

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation and enhancement measures set out in the ‘Ecological Impact Assessment’ by Richard Green Ecology (dated April 2025).

No works above ground level shall take place until full details (including species, type and size at time of planting) of all proposed tree planting and landscaping and the proposed times of planting, have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme and at those times specified. If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree, that tree, or any tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed, dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective another tree of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

Prior to the commencement of any other part of the development hereby permitted, the access, access drive, turning area, access drainage and visibility splays shall be provided in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include plans and sections indicating the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction and the drainage shall be constructed so that no surface water is discharged onto the lane. The agreed details once implemented shall thereafter be retained as such.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development of the types described in Part 1 ([name], AA, B, E and F) and Part 2 ([name] and B) of Schedule 2, other than that hereby permitted shall be carried out without the further grant of planning permission.

The dwelling hereby permitted shall be constructed as a self-build dwelling within the definition of a self-build and custom build housing in the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. [name] first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be by a person or persons who had a primary input into the design and layout of the dwelling (beyond first fix) and who will live in the dwelling for at least 3 years; II. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling the Council shall be notified of the person(s) who will take up first occupation of the dwelling.