Appeal 6001279

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. Legislation1 requires any grant of permission in principle to specify the minimum and maximum net number of dwellings which are, in principle, permitted. The application form states the proposed development as a range of between one and five dwellings, as set out in the above banner heading.

Although not included within the above description of development, or that within the decision notice, the Design and [name] indicates that the proposal would deliver self-build affordable housing, and this is also reflected in the officer report. The appellant’s statement of case presents the proposal as affordable self-build and custom housebuilding (SBCH), and a number of the interested party comments allude to this housing type. Therefore, for the purposes of this appeal I have determined the proposal as affordable SBCH, as this would not prejudice interested parties.

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. 1 Article 5A of The Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017

The appeal site forms part of a large field that inclines from its highway frontage. It has a rural character, enclosed by hedgerow and surrounded by rolling fields with some large trees. Some dwellings and other buildings are also visible.

Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that planning decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one of a list of circumstances apply. The main parties are in dispute as to whether the proposal is isolated. Having regard to the relevant case law2, the word “isolated” in this context simply connotes a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement.

Butterleigh does not have a settlement boundary as shown in the [name] of the Mid Devon Local Plan Review 2013 - 2033 (MDLPR) (adopted 2020). However, it contains a public house (the [name]), a village hall, a church and an outdoor recreation area ([name]). These facilities are located amongst or alongside clusters of dwellings.

The noticeboard by the village hall advertised several various social and community events for all to attend. [name], bought by the village and used for occasional village events, contains two small storage buildings/containers and an area of hardstanding past its entrance gates. At the time of my visit, it did not have a recreational function beyond an enclosed, pleasant walking and exercise field.

Sited immediately beyond the public house car park and within walking distance of the other abovementioned amenities, the appeal site is not placed apart or separate from buildings and services. In this context, irrespective of the lack of a settlement boundary, the proposal would not be an isolated form of development.

It is thus not necessary for me to consider whether the listed circumstances of Framework paragraph 84 would be met. However, I do not interpret paragraph 84 as implying that a dwelling or group of dwellings must be isolated in order for other restrictive policies to apply, where relevant.

Policy S1 of the MDLPR outlines a list of strategic priorities that all development is expected to support, in order to create sustainable communities. Such priorities include: a development focus at the District’s most sustainable settlements3, with a limited level of development in identified villages; and delivering a wide choice of high quality homes through a diverse housing mix and by meeting the housing needs of all sectors of the community, including those wishing to build their own home, and affordable housing.

MDLPR Policy S1 also expects all development to support the creation of sustainable communities by reducing the need to travel by car, and providing safe environments while recognising [name] rural locality. I am not persuaded that these specific planning issues are not relevant to the appeal proposal.

Policy S14 sets out that detailed development management policies will permit a specific list of appropriate rural uses. Such policies include MDLPR Policy DM6. 2 Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Others ([2018] [name] 610) 3 Tiverton, Cullompton and Crediton Policy S3 c) also sets out that to support self-build and custom dwellings meeting the needs of local communities, such dwellings will be permitted as affordable housing in locations outside settlement limits in accordance with Policy DM6. Compliance with Policy DM6 is subject to five listed criteria. Criterion c) requires a rural exception site to adjoin a settlement and be in a suitable location which takes account of other relevant planning issues.

[name] could be described as a small built-up area and has several features typical of villages, it does not contain an educational facility, convenience store or a public transport service. Whilst nearby workshops, industrial units, farms and studs may provide a level of local employment opportunity for some, there are no other facilities and services within Butterleigh’s vicinity to meet essential residential needs. It is thus not listed under MDLPR Policy S13 as one of the District’s rural settlements designated as villages suitable for limited development.

Supporting text to Policy S1 advises at paragraph 4.22 that some parishes do not contain a defined settlement but may have an affordable housing need, in which case a broader interpretation of ‘settlement’ will be appropriate, as long as there would be reasonable access to local services and infrastructure. Supporting text does not have the same force as policy and cannot trump it, but is nonetheless relevant to its interpretation.

The evidence before me indicates that Butterleigh Parish does not include a defined settlement. The MDLPR does not provide a definition of what constitutes reasonable access. This matter is thus a matter of planning judgement based on the submitted evidence before me and the site-specific circumstances.

The appeal site is not served by a footway and the roads in the vicinity are in the main characterised by narrow laneways with no streetlighting. I noted some pedestrians including dog walkers. However, non-vehicular routes to a wider range of services and facilities in the market towns of Tiverton and Cullompton, in Bradninch village, and the school at Bickleigh, would not be convenient or welcoming in terms of distance and accessibility constraints.

Undulating topography, blind corners and long sections of narrow highway would clearly restrict regular non-vehicular use to the abovementioned amenities. Whilst the County Highway Authority (CHA) consultation response raised no in-principle objection, I noted a limited amount of pedestrian refuge points, and the routes from the site would likely be perceived as hazardous or prohibitive for many cyclists.

I therefore anticipate that the site’s location would deter or constrain many non-vehicular trips required to cater for the essential needs of future residents, including those with protected characteristics. Future residents would thus likely be heavily dependent on the use of private vehicles for their day-to-day needs.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal proposal’s location would not provide a reasonable level of access to local services and infrastructure. In this respect, the scheme would conflict with [name] S1, S3 c), S14 and DM6 c), the relevant requirements of which are already set out above.

In a world where shopping can be delivered, people work from home, doctor’s appointments can be done online and cars are electric, the environmental impact of the anticipated private vehicle use may well be low. That does not however mitigate the above policy conflict that I have identified.

A lack of personal injury collisions reported to the police between 2017-2021 is cited in the CHA consultation response. It also refers to observed vehicle speeds being significantly lower than the applicable national speed limit (60 mph), which reflects what I saw during my site visit, and that further vehicular access details could be submitted at TDC stage. The CHA comments understandably focus on highway safety matters but are silent in respect of accessibility to local services, which is ultimately a matter of planning judgement for the decision maker. These specialist consultation comments therefore do not alter my above conclusion.

The proposal seeks to provide affordable SBCH. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) accepts that there is a shortfall of SBCH plots across the District. The appellant’s evidence before me indicates that such a shortfall is significant.

In the case of a self-build proposal, criterion a) of MDLPR Policy DM6 requires evidence of eligibility for shared ownership housing through ‘Help to Buy’ or an equivalent scheme. The government no longer runs a Help to Buy scheme in England, but it offers an equivalent [name] shared ownership scheme. However, to qualify for this scheme, new build [name] outside of London cannot cost more than £250,000, as valued by an independent surveyor. There is no evidence before me that adequately demonstrates that the market value of each proposed dwelling would meet this [name] requirement.

Before me is a letter dated 15 April 2025 from a Tiverton-based estate agent with an extensive experience in the [name] housing market. This advises that seven potential purchasers local to the Butterleigh area have enquired about the appeal proposal in respect of availability if the application were to be acceptable. Some interested party comments express a strong desire for younger generations to buy in Butterleigh, including those working in and around the Parish and supporting the village community life, but that there are no houses available in their price bracket.

The above provides a degree of anecdotal evidence indicating a need for the proposal from those with a strong local connection to the parish. However, the estate agent letter does not demonstrate whether the prospective purchasers referred to cannot afford open market housing to thus justify affordable SBCH at the appeal site.

I have no doubt that some younger people in the locality would struggle to afford to purchase dwellings in that area on the open market. The evidence before me however does not indicate that the above translates to a verifiable need or eligibility for affordable or low-cost housing, including SBCH, for example housing register eligibility. It has therefore not been adequately demonstrated that up to five dwellings would meet a proven local need in the rural area surrounding the appeal site, as required by Policy DM6.

The above policy conflict also means that Policy DM6 criterion d) is not met, which requires the type and scale of affordable or low-cost housing proposed to be appropriate to a proven need. In turn, this raises substantial doubt as to whether each house would be occupied by at least one person with a strong local connection to the Parish, as required by criterion b).

My attention is drawn to an appeal decision elsewhere in the District4 (“the Uplowman appeal decision”). This allowed permission in principle for two affordable self-build residential dwellings on the edge of a village without a defined settlement. The Inspector for that appeal found that despite the lack of evidence of compliance with Policy DM6 criteria a), b) and d), it was viewed as at least conceivable that at TDC stage, further evidence, such as a local housing need survey or eligibility for shared ownership housing, could demonstrate such compliance.

I agree that some further details relevant to Policy DM6 could conceivably be provided at TDC stage. Namely, a legal obligation to ensure compliance with criterion e) requiring the affordable or low-cost housing to remain affordable for and available to local people in perpetuity, limited to no more than 80% of its market value upon resale.

However, the LPA advises that extensions of time were agreed with the appellant on the basis that a Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) was being prepared. This has not been disputed by the appellant. [name] is before me, nor is there an explanation before me as to why this was not provided. As such evidence forms a Policy DM6 criterion a) requirement for affordable or low-cost housing, including self-build, to my mind the above circumstances raise substantial doubt as to whether this criterion would be met in the event that I allow this appeal.

For the above reasons, the proposal, in terms of land use and amount of development, fails to evidence compliance with criteria a), b) and d) of MDLPR Policy DM6. In addition to the conflict with criterion c) that I have already identified, this amounts to overall substantial conflict with Policy DM6.

The Uplowman appeal decision would have turned on its own site-specific merits which, upon my reading of that decision, are materially different. Namely, the Inspector for that appeal scheme found its location to have suitable access to services and facilities. Based on the specific evidence and circumstances before me, I have found policy conflict in this respect, and in relation to other Policy DM6 criteria. Hence, I do not afford the current proposal before me the same latitude against Policy DM6 as the Uplowman appeal decision. That decision thus does not justify allowing the appeal proposal.

The District’s Principal Housing Enabling and Forward Planning Officer indicated support for the proposal, with reference to the Uplowman appeal decision. However, that officer’s view was dependent on the site being within a suitable location with reasonable access to local services and infrastructure, and I have already found planning policy conflict in respect of that matter. The specialist comments of that officer therefore do not justify allowing this appeal.

In summation, for the above reasons I have found overall material and substantial conflict with [name] S1, S14 and DM6, as well as Policy S3 c). The relevant requirements of such policies are already set out above.

It is put to me that the appeal site is not within an area of high flood risk and that the proposal will be ecologically sensitive. These matters are not for full determination at this permission in principle stage. Based on the evidence before 4 Appeal Ref: APP/Y1138/W/24/3344691 - Stonebridge, Uplowman me, I cannot reach a finding as to whether the proposal would amount to an overall betterment from an existing on-site situation in terms of flood risk and ecology. An absence of demonstrable harm at this stage in respect of the above matters however neither weighs in favour nor against allowing this appeal.

For the purposes of this appeal, I have determined the proposal as affordable SBCH, even though it is not included in the application form or decision notice descriptions of development. Therefore, had I been minded to allow the appeal, I would have had to seek comments from the main parties in respect of amending the development description in a manner to ensure that affordable SBCH could be legally secured in perpetuity at TDC stage. However, as I am dismissing this appeal, I need not pursue this matter any further.

The extent of identified conflict with [name] S1, S14, DM6 and S3 c) amounts to conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The LPA accepts that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land. My attention is drawn to another appeal elsewhere in the District5 determined in June 2025 by means of Public Inquiry. The main parties in that appeal agreed that in July 2025 when the MDLPR becomes more than five years old and the standard method applies, the supply figure forecast reduces to around 2.1 years. There is no evidence before me indicating a change to the above situation, which indicates a substantial shortfall in overall housing supply.

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 affordable SBCH, particularly as the LPA has demonstrably and substantially fallen short in meeting this requirement.

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 planning applications on small sites in suitable locations that are not identified in the adopted local plan, but are otherwise acceptable in planning terms.

The SBCH Act 2015 (as amended) places a duty on the LPA to grant planning permission or permission in principle in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for SBCH in the District. This duty is thus not limited to a particular Parish, rural area, or a certain development size within other areas, 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. However, as set out in Framework paragraph 232, due weight should still be given to existing policies, according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.

There is nothing before me to indicate that the policies in the Framework’s footnote 7 are relevant in this case. Hence, the balance in paragraph 11d)ii is applicable. 5 Appeal Ref: APP/Y1138/W/24/3358001 - Land at [name], Tiverton. 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 number of existing dwellings at Butterleigh, provision of up to five new dwellings on undeveloped land would constitute a significant amount of development. Framework paragraph 110 states that such development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.

Paragraph 110 then goes on to say that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in decision-making. Rural exception sites are, in their very essence, rural in nature. However, in this context I have nonetheless found that the appeal site location and proposed land use would not provide a reasonable level of access to local services and infrastructure for the amount of proposed development. I thus conclude that the proposal would not be in a sustainable location with particular reference to Framework paragraphs 110 and 115.

Framework footnote 9 also lists paragraphs 129, 135 and 139. These are also of some relevance as, amongst other things, they support development that secures well-designed, attractive and healthy places, including in terms of layout. I have no reason to doubt that in these respects, five dwellings could be provided on the site, subject to full and final designs for consideration at TDC stage. I agree with the LPA that consideration would need to be given to rural character and topography. An absence of demonstrable harm at this permission in principle stage in respect of the above matters however neither weigh in favour nor against allowing this appeal.

MDLPR policies S1, S3, S14 and DM6 seek to direct development towards areas with reasonable level of access to local services and infrastructure, and to reduce the need to travel by car. These policies however do not restrict all types of new housing outside of settlement boundaries. These policies are therefore generally consistent with the Framework in this regard, including its key paragraphs 110 and

Given this, along with the locational shortcomings I have identified, I attach full weight to the resultant conflict with the abovementioned MDLPR policy aims.

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 up to five dwellings would be modest in scale relative to the District’s overall need. However, provision of affordable SBCH would provide a specific type of housing in response to the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The associated benefits of this are therefore afforded significant weight.

Matters regarding electric vehicle charging points and other carbon or energy reduction measures are not for determination at this permission in principle stage. These matters can therefore only be afforded limited weight as potential benefits.

The Framework supports housing that enhances the vitality of rural communities. It also states that in order to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, and where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. There is however no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate that the vitality of existing services and facilities within Butterleigh, the surrounding rural community, and surrounding villages and towns, is dependent on additional dwellings at Butterleigh.

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.