Appeal 6001134

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site lies within the setting of the grade I listed1 [address] at [address], including its flanking walls and pavilions (‘the gatehouse’) and forms part of the East Devon National Landscape2 (NL). Both main parties agree that the remains of the building3 on the appeal site comprise a non-designated heritage asset. It is also agreed that this asset is of low to negligible significance.

The appeal site lies within the consultation zone for the [name] and Caves Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

The LPA has informed me that it can only demonstrate 3.5 years supply of housing.

The three main issues are: firstly, whether the proposal would preserve the setting of ‘the gatehouse’ and, if not, whether any harm would be outweighed by any public benefits; secondly, whether the proposal accords with established national and local planning policies for new housing within the countryside and; thirdly, the effect upon the character and appearance of the area.

The development plan includes the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 (LP). My attention has been drawn to numerous policies and strategies. The most important policies/strategies to the determination of this appeal are D8 (re-use of 1 The provisions of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) are engaged. The appeal site also lies within the settings of several other listed buildings, including the grade I listed [address]. 2 The provisions of section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) are engaged. 3 I understand that this was an ‘L’ shaped cribhouse, built during the mid-Victorian period and most likely used as a livestock shelter or cowhouse with a first floor hayloft. rural buildings outside of settlements), EN9 (designated heritage assets), TC2 (accessibility of new development), Strategy 7 (development in the countryside), Strategy 46 (landscape) and Strategy 5B (sustainable transport).

My attention has also been drawn to the emerging East Devon Local Plan 2020- 20429 (eLP). However, the plan has yet to reach a stage where it can be afforded any significant weight in the determination of this appeal. I note the various policies referred to by the main parties, including HE02 (setting of listed buildings), OL02 (national landscapes) and HN06 (replacing existing buildings/conversion).

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is an important material consideration that carries substantial weight. [name] note the proposed reforms and other changes to the Framework that were published in December 2025, at this stage, the consultation draft status of that document carries little weight.

The proposed development would include the construction of a one and a half storey, three bedroom detached dwelling set within the remnants4 and sizeable ‘footprint’ of the non-designated heritage asset on the appeal site. The dwelling would be designed to reflect the ‘L’ shaped remains of the former agricultural building with the existing walls repaired and retained. It would include simple detailing and fenestration, with the main openings on the south western elevation.

The roof of the dwelling would be slightly asymmetric in shape so as to overhang the existing walls and offer some protection. The new walls and roof would be finished using grey slate. There would be no garage facilities, but some space around the dwelling would comprise residential curtilage capable of accommodating vehicular parking and other domestic trappings.

This new dwelling would be designed to a high standard. The appellant’s architect has given thoughtful consideration to ensuring that the ruinous walls of the former agricultural building/non-designated heritage asset would be retained and successfully incorporated within a scheme of residential development. I note the numerous examples of schemes of development undertaken elsewhere5 that have been drawn to my attention and involving designated heritage assets.

‘The gatehouse’ has 16th century or earlier origins and lies approximately 50 metres east of the entrance to the appeal site. The heritage interest (significance) of this grade I listed building is primarily derived from its special architectural and historic qualities. The special architectural qualities include the building’s central three-storey tower with semi-octagonal corner turrets, stone mullion and transom windows, crenellated parapet, centred arch, flanking crenellated walls terminating in smaller three storey pavilions and plasterwork ceiling6. The special historic qualities of this important listed building include its role/function as a gatehouse guarding the entrance / carriage drive to the medieval manor house at [address] and its associations with [name] and the Shute estate. 4 Local flint and chert rubble stone walls. 5 These other sites are however materially different, not least in terms of location, to the appeal site. In all probability, the developments that have been undertaken on these sites were also considered in a different policy context to the one before me. They do not set a precedent that I am bound to follow. 6 I understand that this plasterwork dates to the Jacobean period and comes from another property elsewhere in Devon.

The setting of ‘the gatehouse’ includes the green in front (north), the wooded driveway to the south that leads to [address], as well as the surrounding open, undulating countryside. The main body of the appeal site sits below the ground level of ‘the gatehouse’. It forms an integral part of the historic landscape / countryside setting to this designated heritage asset. The largely open, unspoilt rural qualities of the appeal site assist in affording an appreciation and understanding of the significance and grandeur of ‘the gatehouse’ within this part of the east Devon landscape7. The remains of the traditional rural building on the site do not detract from the setting of ‘the gatehouse’.

The proposed dwelling would be seen in some views of ‘the gatehouse’. Seeing a development does not in itself necessarily amount to a harmful impact and, as I have noted above, the proposal would be designed to a high standard. However, the roof of the proposed dwelling would project considerably above the ruinous walls of the former agricultural building on the appeal site. Together with the sizeable mass of the new building, the proposal would appear as an unexpected addition within the attractive rural surrounds to ‘the gatehouse’. This new dwellinghouse would intrude into the countryside setting of this designated heritage asset and erode the contribution the appeal site makes to the historic landscape setting and significance of this grade I listed building8.

This adverse impact of the proposal would be compounded by residential activity taking place within the appeal site. This includes the comings-and-goings of domestic motor vehicles and deliveries, light spill9 and the inevitable domestic paraphernalia that would follow. This would markedly change the character and appearance of the appeal site and contrast sharply with the surrounding open countryside. The proposal would disrupt the setting of ‘the gatehouse’.

If the proposed dwelling was permitted, it would also be difficult for the LPA to resist future pressure for curtilage buildings / structures. These would be likely to exacerbate the harmful change to the setting of an important designated heritage asset that I have identified above. The introduction of residential development into this part of the setting of ‘the gatehouse’ would be incongruous and distract from an appreciation and understanding of a building that has been identified as being of exceptional interest. I note that in commenting upon the application, the LPA’s conservation officer, the National Trust and Historic England all expressed concerns over the likely impact of the proposal.

In the context of the Framework, the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of ‘the gatehouse’. However, this does not amount to a less than substantial planning objection. Great weight should be given to an asset’s conservation and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. If there is a sliding scale within this category of harm, the proposal would be somewhere near a mid-point. The harm that I have identified above weighs heavily against granting planning permission. 7 I also noted during my visit that, when viewed from the west, the appeal site lies within the foreground of [address], with the upper parts of this grade I listed medieval manor house visible above the tops of the surrounding trees. From here, the appeal site forms an integral part of the historic landscape setting of [address]. The largely open, unspoilt rural qualities of the appeal site also assist in affording an appreciation and understanding of the significance of this grade I listed building. 8 Similarly, when seen from the west, the proposal would also intrude into the setting of [address]. However, I am mindful that this particular matter is largely untouched upon within the evidence provided by both main parties. My decision does not therefore turn on the impact upon the significance of this medieval manor house. 9 [name] note the lighting assessments submitted in support of the application, even with a lighting regime in place, some light spill would occur and glare from car headlights would take place during the hours of dusk and darkness.

I am required to weigh the less than substantial harm that I have identified with any public benefits. In this regard, I note the appellant’s argument that the proposal represents the optimal long-term viable use of a heritage asset, as well as comprising appropriate enabling development.

The proposal would secure the retention and long-term future of the remains of a traditional (Victorian) farm building. This weighs in favour of an approval. However, as already noted, both main parties agree that this is a non-designated heritage asset of low to negligible significance. It would be nonsensical to grant permission to retain such an asset where this would result in harm to the significance of a higher status / value designated heritage asset. It is also by no means certain that the remains of this farm building, which is surrounded by agricultural land10, could not be retained/re-used in association with some agricultural or other rural based business / use in this part of east Devon.

I note the appellant’s argument that restoring the building on the appeal site for any new use would be likely to require substantial works and a significant financial outlay. However, there is nothing of substance to substantiate this or to demonstrate, for example, that a ‘low key’ re-use / adaptation for agriculture or another rural based business or activity would be prohibitive / unfeasible. It is very far from certain that the appeal scheme is the optimal or best option for securing the future of this non-designated heritage asset. Even if it was, it would be insufficient to outweigh the harm to the setting of ‘the gatehouse’ identified above.

The proposed development would add to the choice and supply of homes available within [name] district and would help to address the significant shortfall in supply. During the building phase, there would be some limited support for the construction industry and upon occupation of the dwelling there would be an increase in Council Tax receipts. These are also public benefits to weigh in the balance, together with the landscape planting that would be undertaken as part of the development, as well as the proposed habitat creation and wildlife measures.

I afford moderate weight to the totality of the public benefits that have been advanced in support of the proposed development. However, when this is weighed with the harm to the significance of ‘the gatehouse’ that I have found above, the heritage balance tips firmly against granting planning permission.

I conclude on the first main issue that the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of ‘the gatehouse’ and this harm would not be outweighed by the public benefits advanced in support of the appeal scheme. There would be conflict with the objectives of LP policy EN9 and eLP policy HE02.

The appeal site lies outside the confines of the nearest settlement of Shute and forms part of the open countryside11. Within such locations, established national and local planning policies, in essence, seek to locate new development where it would have access to services and facilities, including public transport, and to avoid isolated new homes within the countryside. Bus services operate through 10 It has not been explained why the site, which is within the same ownership as the adjoining sizeable field to the north, is not required in connection with the agricultural use of that field. Whilst it may not be well-related or within the same ownership of any adjacent farm buildings, it is not unusual for farm businesses to have buildings on outlying land within the countryside. 11 The Design and [name], amongst other things, states that the building, which is the subject of the proposal, is within an isolated location. Shute and nearby there is a primary school and church. However, the frequency of the bus services and limited range of services that exist would result in occupiers of the proposed dwelling being largely reliant upon the use of private motor vehicles for accessing main services and facilities. The proposed development would increase the need to travel by private motor vehicles and be at odds with the objectives of LP policy TC2 and Strategy 5B.

As set out within the Framework, new homes within the countryside could be permitted where, amongst other things, they would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets. I have addressed these matters above as part of the first main issue and do not repeat them here.

New homes could also be permitted where the design would be of exceptional quality. [name] have found above that the proposed dwelling would be designed to a high standard, it could not, in my opinion, be reasonably described as truly outstanding design, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and likely to help raise the standards of design more generally in rural area. There is nothing extraordinary or remarkable about the proposed design that indicates to me that it reaches the very high bar of exceptional quality. The land around the appeal site is also attractive open countryside. The proposal would not enhance the immediate setting of the site12, which also forms part of the setting to ‘the gatehouse’, and where I have already identified harm to the significance of a high value designated heritage asset.

Established planning policies also allow for the re-use of redundant or disused buildings. In the context of the development plan, the proposed construction of a new building within the existing ruinous walls would conflict with the provisions of LP policy D8 which, amongst other things, require the building to be structurally sound and without requiring substantial alterations, extensions and construction.

As noted by the Inspector who determined an appeal in Combe Raleigh13 in 2024, LP policy D8 is now inconsistent with the provisions of the Framework. Non-compliance with this LP policy alone would not therefore be a sound basis for withholding permission. However, this does not lend any meaningful weight to the appellant’s argument. The Framework also requires an enhancement to the immediate setting and as identified above, the proposal would not achieve this. As a consequence, it does not accord with the relevant provisions of the Framework.

I conclude on the second main issue that the proposal conflicts with established national and local planning policies for new housing within the countryside.

The NL covers an extensive and diverse area that includes sections of the coast, remote plateau and elevated rides. The special qualities of this nationally designated landscape include the mix of landscapes and a patchwork of farmland, hedgerows and woodland copses. I note that the appeal site lies within the ‘[name] and Wooded Valley Slopes’ landscape character type (LCT) as defined within the Landscape Character Assessment for [name] 2019. 12 The proposed removal of the masonry gate piers at the site entrance would have a neutral impact upon the setting. 13 [name]/U1105/W/23/3333745.

[name] is described as being of exceptionally high scenic quality and a quintessential Devon landscape. Its key characteristics include: a dispersed settlement pattern of isolated farms and small villages; an intimate and intricate landscape and where views occur they contain distinctive patchwork pattern of fields and; relatively remote and tranquil with little obvious modern development.

[name] saw during my visit, the appeal site forms an integral part of the attractive open countryside that surrounds the settlement of Shute and the grade I listed gatehouse. Its largely open, unspoilt rural qualities also contribute to the setting of the settlement and to the natural beauty and scenic qualities of this part of the NL. The ruinous appearance of the traditional building on the site adds to a pleasing sense of time depth in the landscape.

I agree with the LPA’s assessment that the proposed dwelling would represent a visually prominent intrusion into this part of the NL. The harm that I have identified above to the setting of ‘the gatehouse’ would also detract from the setting of Shute and an appreciation of the patchwork of farmland around this settlement. The proposal would comprise obvious / conspicuous modern (residential) development within the landscape and have an adverse effect upon the natural beauty and scenic qualities of the area. This adverse impact would not be offset by the proposed landscape planting. The harm to this nationally important landscape adds considerable weight to the argument for withholding permission.

I conclude on the third main issue that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and conflict with the provisions of LP strategies 7 and 46 and eLP policies OL02 and HN06.

[name] have found harm in respect of the main issues above, it is not necessary for me, as the Competent Authority, to undertake an assessment under the habitats regulations14 in respect of the likely effects upon the SAC.

The harm that I have found in respect of the grade I listed gatehouse and the NL provide strong grounds for withholding planning permission. In this instance, the ‘tilted balance’ provided for within the Framework is not engaged. Even if it was, the adverse impacts that would arise if permission was granted would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Given my findings in respect of the main issues above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the overall provisions of the development plan, the eLP and the Framework. It would not comprise sustainable development. The appeal does not therefore succeed.