Appeal 6001240

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that permission in principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development, and has two stages. The first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle. The second “technical details consent” (TDC) stage is when detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first stage and thus solely relates to the principle of the scheme.

Scope of considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if permission in principle is granted.

The description of development in the above banner heading is taken from the application form. It expresses the proposed development as a range of between three and nine dwellings. Legislation1 requires any grant of permission in principle to specify the minimum and maximum net number of dwellings which are, in principle, permitted.

Both the above description and that included in the decision notice refer to “a phased development”. There is very little information before me regarding the precise intended phasing. However, the PPG sets out that separate TDC applications for different phases of development cannot be made. A TDC application would thus have to include all matters necessary to enable full planning permission to be granted for the permission in principle site. For this reason, as a matter of law I cannot consider the appeal proposal as a phased type of development. I have determined this appeal accordingly.

The permission in principle process is high level and does not require the decision-maker to be satisfied about all aspects of a proposal. Mindful of this context, I 1 Article 5A of The Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017 nonetheless see no reason why accessibility to services and facilities cannot be considered as a determining matter at this stage within the ambit of location, land use and amount of development. The proposal site’s relationship with the nearby Culmstock Conservation Area and Blackdown Hills National Landscape are also relevant considerations in this context.

Therefore, the main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with particular reference to: • highway safety; • the setting of the Blackdown Hills National Landscape; and • the setting of the Culmstock Conservation Area.

Culmstock is listed as one of the 22 rural settlements in the District designated as villages suitable for limited development, as set out in Policy S13 of the Mid Devon Local Plan Review 2013 - 2033 (MDLPR) (adopted 2020). The appeal proposal site comprises part of an undeveloped field and at two if its boundaries, adjoins the Culmstock settlement boundary as set out in the [name].

This village contains services and facilities that can contribute to meeting the day-to-day needs of its residents. I found that these amenities were within reasonable walking distance from the proposal site in terms of distance. Pedestrian safety, and that of other non-vehicular users, is not only be influenced by distance, but also by the quality of the experience.

The County Highway Authority (CHA) consultation comments set out that the site is in principle acceptable, and that details for matters such as pedestrian links, street lighting and access visibility splays would be considered at TDC stage. I also note that the officer report to Planning Committee indicates that an active travel route towards the north of the site is expected to be more appropriate for pedestrians than [address], given its lack of footpaths.

However, whilst full highway details are for consideration at TDC stage, I do not even have an indicative pedestrian connection point and off-site route before me to adequately demonstrate the feasibility of an alternative pedestrian route away from the main carriageway, in terms of enhancing pedestrian connectivity between the site and the village in an accessible, convenient and realistic manner. I must therefore consider the real possibility of future occupiers being reliant on [address] for pedestrian access to the village services and facilities.

[address]’s speed limit changes from the national speed limit (60mph) to 30mph just after the field gate to the proposal site at its easternmost corner. I could not observe vehicle speeds at this area as at the time of my site visit, a section of [address], beyond this field gate towards the village to the [address] and [address] junction, was temporarily closed to vehicular traffic. This appeared to be due to property works being undertaken along the highway boundary. No vehicle speed survey evidence is before me.

Nonetheless, to my mind, walking along [address], when open to vehicular traffic, from the proposal site to the village facilities, is unlikely to feel attractive or safe. Past the southern priority junction with an unnamed road, there are significant width and visibility constraints on [address]. This is due to the hedgerow and stone wall along each side of a tight downhill bend, a relatively narrow carriageway with no centre line, and no verges or footways available to provide refuge for pedestrians and other non-vehicular users.

The road is also significantly more narrow by the [address] and [address] junction, which needs to be passed to access the village services. Whilst my visit was only a snapshot in time, I saw some large commercial and agricultural vehicles passing through the village, and I see no reason why similar large vehicles would not ordinarily use [address] past the proposal site towards the village.

Despite the absence of a [name], the above characteristics make it clear to me that the proposal would materially increase the likelihood of conflicts between vehicles and non-vehicular users. Whilst the carriageway is served by some street lighting, this route would still be unsafe for pedestrians and less able users.

The appellant has expressed willingness to proactively collaborate with the CHA to provide appropriate details for TDC stage. However, accounting for the above highway constraints and all evidence before me, the feasibility of achieving a safe and continuous pedestrian route from the site along [address] to the village has not been adequately demonstrated.

Access to the village bus stops serving various villages and towns would also require use of the route described above, and are thus unlikely to provide a convenient means of transport for all pedestrians. Whilst the highway accident statistics before me do not indicate a hazard at or near the proposal site, this could be attributable to the road characteristics being a deterrent to pedestrians, and a consequential lack of pedestrian traffic on the route.

For the above reasons and based on the evidence before me, the proposed location, land use and amount of development would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety in terms of pedestrian access to Culmstock’s services and facilities. This could also render future occupiers of the appeal development reliant upon private motor vehicles. The above amounts to conflict with MDLPR Policy DM1 which requires, amongst other things, new development to create a safe and accessible place that enables sustainable modes of travel such as walking.

I have no reason to doubt that detailed designs for a safe vehicular access and internal roads and paths could be achieved at TDC stage. The secondary school in Uffculme is some three miles away and thus could be accessible for some by cycle. Cyclists could also use the existing highway network to the village and beyond to other locations. Such matters do not however mitigate the adverse impact that I have identified in relation to pedestrians and less able users.

I accept that past the [address] and [address] junction, the north-south road route through the village, where most of its amenities are located, is not entirely served by segregated footways. There are however several demarcated highway areas that assist pedestrian movements, and I also observed that parked vehicles on the highway naturally tempered traffic speeds. Although there is no separate footway over [name] which is too narrow for two-way vehicular traffic, at this area the highway route is relatively straight. The bridge also has several triangular cutwater-style features that provide pedestrian refuge points.

This main route through Culmstock is also served by many existing dwellings. That is not however the case for the highway route from the proposal site along [address], given the limited amount of dwellings along or within the vicinity of that route. In this context, a significant number of new residents would be vulnerable to particular highway safety risks not experienced by most existing village residents. The existing highway conditions along the main route within the village therefore do not justify the appeal proposal.

Although at some distance away from its boundaries, owing to the topography of the landscape surrounding Culmstock, the appeal site is within the setting of the BHNL. Traversing north-eastwards along [address] towards the proposal site, dwellings would be visible if sited on the site’s existing ground level due to the undulating site and road levels, despite the presence of hedgerow along the road.

Therefore, even if the proposed dwellings would be single-storey and partially cut in to the existing slopes, development of the elevated field would still inevitably impinge on the existing open views of the distant land beyond within the BHNL that rises towards [name]. This hilltop landscape is a striking and prominent feature in the village locale, and it thus contributes to the special qualities of the BHNL. A robust landscaping and planting scheme could potentially mitigate the visual impact from along [address], but would take some years to establish.

Many other views of the abovementioned hilltop landscape feature are available from within and around Culmstock village. Some nearby roof forms immediately beyond the appeal site are also visible from [address]. I found views of the proposal site from along [address] to be largely restricted by hedgerows and buildings. The site’s immediate setting is therefore influenced by both the nearby countryside and the village’s built form. It thus makes a small contribution to the setting of the BHNL and the landscape character of the area.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the provision of between three and nine dwellings within the proposal site would have a limited adverse visual impact on the setting of the BHNL and the landscape character of the area. Such development would thus fail to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the BHNL. This amounts to conflict with Policy DM27 of the MDLPR which requires, amongst other things, development proposals affecting the BHNL to demonstrate that the character, appearance, setting and other special qualities of the landscape will be conserved or, where possible, enhanced.

At the elevated land by [name], development of the proposal site would appear well-contained by the village’s built form in front of it. In this context, development of this site would not intrude significantly into the wider landscape. Views of the proposal would diminish when traversing downhill towards the village, and would then be restricted by topography, shrubbery and built form. These specific impacts do not amount to harm to the BHNL’s special qualities, and I found no views of the proposal site from the nearest public vantage points within the BHNL to the southeast of the site.

The proposal site is near to the CCA boundary which encapsulates much of Culmstock village. I have found the significance of the CCA as a whole to be derived from its range and quality of historic and traditional buildings, and the visual connections with surrounding open land. Although the statutory duty within Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 does not apply to a site outside of a Conservation Area, there are relevant policies within the MDLPR and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that govern the setting of a Conservation Area.

Part of the village church tower ([name]) is visible from within the proposal site, along with some other historic roofscapes also within the CCA. However, I found no other intervisibility between the proposal site and that historic built form from along [address], including from within the church grounds. From other nearby surrounding public vantage points within the CCA, I found views of the proposal site to be restricted by built form and shrubbery.

The only other intervisibility I found from public vantage points was at further distance away from the proposal site, namely at the elevated land by [name]. The CCA is also already surrounded by more modern village development at several notable locations. Therefore, the limited intervisibility between the proposal site and the CCA is such that further development of up to nine dwellings would not diminish the significance of the CCA through development in its setting, including its current association with the wider undeveloped landscape.

The setting of heritage assets goes beyond visual contributions and does not solely involve views from publicly accessible land. However, the undeveloped nature of the proposal site does not bring any clear understanding to the significance of the CCA. Thus, the proposal would not harm its significance. Overall, I am satisfied that an appropriately designed scheme at TDC stage would avoid conflict with MDLPR Policy DM25 and Framework Paragraph 210 in this respect.

MDLPR Policy DM27 also requires biodiversity to be conserved and enhanced where possible through improved linking of habitats, appropriate landscaping and habitat creation. The main parties agree that the appeal site is within flood zone 1 which represents the lowest probability of river flooding. It is also put to me that there is growing evidence to confirm that SBCH provides higher levels of environmentally sustainable design and construction methods.

However, the above matters are not for determination at this permission in principle stage. Based on the evidence before me, I cannot reach a finding as to whether the proposal would amount to an overall betterment from an existing on-site situation in respect of ecology or flood risk, or that the design and construction would have greater environmental credentials than non-SBCH development. An absence of demonstrable harm at this stage in these respects neither weighs in favour nor against allowing this appeal.

It is put to me that the decision of the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to refuse permission in principle is inconsistent with local precedent. Namely, the approval in 2018 of a second phase of [address] on the northern edge of Culmstock, and a more recent permission in principle granted for up to seven self-build plots at Chawley.

The nearby [address] site is more visible from [name] and along its descent to the village than the appeal proposal, as it is nearer to the NL boundary and at a more elevated position than the proposal site. However, unlike the appeal proposal, that site is directly served by a segregated footway and paved route alongside the highway to the village’s primary school.

There are procedurally linked circumstances with the Chawley example. That village is however at considerable distance from the appeal site and thus the locational circumstances are not the same as the appeal proposal.

My attention has also been drawn to various appeal decisions across the country. They would have also all turned on their own particular merits and policy contexts. I also accept that the principle of development was explicitly supported by the LPA’s planning case officer, the CHA and the local [name], and that the District’s conservation officer indicated support for some limited development at the site. I must however determine the appeal proposal on its own site-specific circumstances. For the above reasons, all matters referred to above do not justify allowing this appeal.

The proposal derives support from MDLPR Policy S1 insofar as it would deliver a wide choice of homes by meeting the housing needs of all sectors of the community, including those wishing to build their own home. However, while recognising [name] rural locality, by failing to demonstrate a safe environment to Culmstock’s facilities and services for non-vehicular users, I am not adequately satisfied at this permission in principle stage that the proposal would achieve a high quality or sustainable development, as also required by Policy S1.

Given the above, along with the extent of conflict with [name] DM1 and DM27 that I have identified, the proposal amounts to conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The LPA accepts that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land. Its housing land supply figure as published in March 2025 was 4.79 years. As set out in the District’s Housing Delivery Test Action Plan (April 2025), as of 29 July 2025 the MDLPR is more than five years old, and the standard method therefore applies. This results in an increase in the District’s housing supply requirement from 393 dwellings per annum (DPA) to 572 DPA.

There is no evidence before me indicating a change to the above situation, which indicates a substantial housing supply shortfall. Although not a legal requirement at this permission in principle stage, the draft unilateral undertaking versions before me indicate a clear intention to secure the development as SBCH for those on the District’s register.

The LPA also accepts that there is a shortfall of SBCH plots across the District. The evidence before me indicates that such a shortfall is substantial and is persisting, with additional entries on the SBCH register exceeding the amount of SBCH granted permission in the District. The register may also not be capturing all actual demand. The proposal would deliver open-market SBCH, and MDLPR Policy S3 would make any delivery of six dwellings or more at this site subject to a target of 30% affordable dwellings to be applied to the total number of dwellings.

The MDLPR spatial strategy is currently failing to deliver the District’s required housing, including SBCH. There is also a wider 411 home cumulative shortfall within the 2013-2023 plan period, as set out in the District’s Housing Delivery Test Action Plan (April 2025). It is thus not surprising that this Action Plan positively encourages applications on small sites in suitable locations that are not identified in the adopted local plan, but are otherwise acceptable in planning terms.

Many interested parties contend that there is no local need for the proposed development. The SBCH Act 2015 (as amended) however places a duty on the LPA to grant planning permission or permission in principle in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet demand for SBCH in the District. This duty is thus not limited to a particular Parish, village or other area, nor does it require application of any affordability criteria for intended occupiers.

Given the above circumstances, paragraph 11d of the Framework is engaged, and the spatial strategy of the MDLPR is out-of-date. I therefore attach limited weight to the MDLPR settlement boundaries.

The second reason for refusal also cites conflict with paragraph 190 of the Framework. This paragraph refers to, amongst other things, development within National Landscapes (NLs). The appeal site is however not within a NL and therefore, Framework paragraph 190 is not relevant to the proposal. Framework paragraph 189 however sets out that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in NLs. Development within the setting of a NL should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas.

I have carefully considered the statutory duty related to NLs2. I have found that the adverse visual impact on the setting of the BHNL would be limited to views along [address]. I am however satisfied that this impact could be minimised, subject to appropriate design at TDC stage. A robust and appropriate landscape planting scheme may also provide mitigation once sufficiently established. Accordingly, this impact does not amount to a strong reason to refuse permission in principle.

Hence, the balance in Framework paragraph 11d)ii is applicable. This sets out that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to specified key policies. Such key policies are listed in the Framework’s footnote 9 and seek, amongst other things, to direct development to sustainable locations.

Framework paragraphs 110 and 115 are listed as key policies in that respect, and I have found that they have relevance to the proposal. Promoting sustainable transport, these paragraphs set out that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of the delivery of sustainable places.

Relative to the existing highway conditions and amount of residential development along the existing [address] route from the appeal site to the village facilities and services, provision of up to nine new dwellings on undeveloped land would 2 See footnote 6 above constitute a significant amount of development. Framework paragraph 110 states that such development should, amongst other things, offer a genuine choice of transport modes.

Paragraph 110 also states that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in decision-making. However, in this context I have nonetheless found that the appeal site location, and the proposed land use and amount of development, would not create a safe and accessible place that enables sustainable modes of travel such as walking.

Paragraph 115 sets out that in assessing specific applications for development, it should be ensured that sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account matters including its location, and that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. It is put to me that the wider field where the proposal site is located has long been considered suitable for residential development in principle, even at a scale of between 40 and 66 dwellings, as set out in the District’s 2014 published Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA).

[name] indicates that the above would require road widening, junction analysis of Town Hill and [address] and a safety audit. The above range of dwellings is of much greater scale than currently proposed. Nonetheless, based on the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that significant impacts on highway safety in terms of access to village facilities and services can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree through a vision-led approach, as also sought by paragraph 115. I thus conclude that the proposal would not be in a sustainable location with particular reference to Framework paragraphs 110 and 115.

Moreover, Framework paragraph 116 indicates, amongst other things, that development can be refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Paragraph 117 also sets out that within this context, development should give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, including with neighbouring areas, address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport, and create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.

[name] S1 and DM1 are therefore generally consistent with the Framework in the above regards, including its key paragraphs 110 and 115. Given this, along with the locational shortcomings I have identified, I attach full weight to the resultant conflict with the MDLPR Policy S1 and DM1 aims in terms of creating safe and accessible places.

The Framework states that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area as they are often built out relatively quickly. It also supports small sites coming forward for SBCH and to use tools such as permission in principle. Provision of between three and nine dwellings would be modest in scale relative to the District’s overall need.

Provision of SBCH would however provide a specific type of housing in response to the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The PPG describes the benefits of SBCH as helping to add diversity to the housing market and increase consumer choice. It facilitates people to create designs and layouts to suit their specific needs. This adds weight to the benefits associated with the supply of SBCH, particularly as the District has demonstrably and substantially fallen short in meeting this requirement. The associated benefits of the proposal are therefore afforded significant weight.

However, in the specific circumstances of this appeal, the adverse impacts I have identified in relation to the proposed location, land use and amount of development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations before me, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.