Appeal 6001320

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is in the East Devon National Landscape (the EDNL), previously known as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where the statutory purpose is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. I have taken the relevant submissions and policies relating to AONBs to apply as if they referred to National Landscapes.

The Council has consulted on the draft East Devon Local Plan (2020-2042): it intends to submit this for examination in Spring 2026 and some of its Policies are referred to on the Decision Notice. However, these emerging Policies carry very limited weight in the context of this appeal given the potential for further modification during the examination process.

The building has the benefit of a Lawful Development Certificate for construction and use as an agricultural barn to accommodate livestock.

The main issues are: whether the building is needed for agricultural purposes; the effect on the character and appearance of the area; whether the site is a suitable location with regard to accessibility of services and facilities; and the effect on protected species and habitats.

The appeal site is on the edge of Northleigh, a small village some 4 miles from Colyton and from Honiton. It is outside any designated Built-up Area Boundary. Although it is not isolated, as there are other residential properties nearby, it is in the countryside for planning policy purposes.

Strategy 6 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013–2031, adopted 2016 (the LP) seeks to direct development to within Built-up Area Boundaries. Strategy 7 indicates a general presumption against development in the countryside unless it complies with specific [name]. The re-use of rural buildings outside settlements is supported by Policy D8 of the LP subject to a number of criteria that apply to all proposals with additional criteria (a),(b) and (c) relating to residential proposals.

The new barn is generally in good structural condition and is suitable for conversion. The dwelling would be accommodated mainly within the envelope of the existing building albeit with renovation and with a small projection at the rear of the building being replaced with a slightly larger one. New openings would be kept to a minimum. I see no substantive reason to disagree with the Council that the building is capable of conversion without the need for substantial alterations in accordance with Policy D8(2).

At the time of my visit there was a tractor and sundry items within the barn but no recent signs of livestock. The appellants have used some 20 acres of pasture land for breeding and rearing pedigree Hereford cattle and rare breed pigs for more than twenty years and have used the building for livestock since at least 2006. In 2024, for personal reasons, the farm livestock was disposed of. The building has therefore not been needed by the appellants for agricultural purposes for a relatively short period of time.

The appellants agricultural enterprise has ceased so its viability would not be undermined. The land has been let to a neighbouring farmer for grazing and silage as part of another holding. The additional land would help support the viability of that holding so the first part of Policy D8(5) is met.

The stated intention is for the appellants to downsize into the new dwelling retaining some 16 acres of land which would continue to be let as it is now. There appears to be no need for further agricultural infrastructure or replacement buildings for this land at present. However, there is no mechanism, as required by the last paragraph of Policy D8, to prevent the proliferation of any replacement or new buildings that could have a detrimental effect on the landscape in the future.

There may be other buildings on the wider holding that could be used if needed, but no details of these have been provided. [name] cannot confidently conclude that replacement buildings to fulfil a similar function would not be required. Nor is it clear that opportunities for diversification that would meet the terms of Policy D8(a) have been explored.

The farmhouse, holiday cottages/storage buildings, and approximately 4 acres of the land, would be sold as a separate unit. Whilst it is realistic to suppose there may be no need for a large replacement agricultural building to serve this size of land, there may well be pressure for stables or other animal shelters or structures. The extent to which such needs could be met in the existing buildings has not been demonstrated.

For the above reasons, although there is no policy support in the LP for requiring marketing to establish whether the building is redundant, I conclude that it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the building is no longer required for agricultural use or diversification purposes or that replacement buildings to fulfil a similar function would not be required. In this respect the proposal would conflict with parts of Policy D8 of the LP as set out above. I give this conflict significant weight against the proposal.

The EDNL is very varied from a dramatic coastline to lowland heath, high woodland cover, predominantly pastoral farmland, and open fertile valleys. The built environment is characterised by hamlets and villages, with many accessed by narrow country lanes with tall Devon hedges. Northleigh is a typical small village.

The appeal building is adjacent to the stone buildings of [site address] and on other sides is surrounded by open fields and hedges. It is of an appropriate design and appearance for an agricultural building in the EDNL and the countryside generally. The proposals would retain the form and of the building and its barn-like character and appearance. Some openings would be infilled and new openings would be minimised.

There would be some increase in residential activity, paraphernalia and lighting but this would be off-set by the removal of hardstanding and associated agricultural paraphernalia. The proposal itself would therefore leave the qualities of the EDNL and the countryside unharmed. It would meet the requirements of Policy D8(3), D8(b) and part of Policy D8(1) and would not conflict with those principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that require that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in the EDNL which has the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. However, as set out above, there is the potential for proliferation of buildings in the EDNL which does give rise to some conflict.

Northleigh has a church and a village hall with a licensed bar and is within a group of small settlements with some facilities such as other churches, [name] and [name], village hall and [name] some one and a half miles away.

Due to the distance from day to day facilities; the narrow, steep, sinuous, unlit, lanes leading to Northfield, which have no footways and few verges; and the very infrequent alternative travel modes; I consider it unlikely that future occupiers would commonly choose to walk or cycle to such services and facilities. The need to travel by private vehicle could not be avoided.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policy D8(c) and parts of Policy D8(1) as the site is not near to a range of day to day services and facilities. I am aware that colleagues1 have found that Policy D8 of the LP is out-of-date with the Framework by way of introducing an additional requirement to be close to services and facilities. However, Strategy 5B and Policy TC2 of the LP also require new development to be accessible by a range of transport modes and not dependent on the private car which accord with the Framework principles of focusing development in sustainable locations. The small scale of the proposal means the additional journeys generated would be relatively small and as recognised in the Framework, the opportunities for sustainable transport will be vary between urban 1 [name]/U1105/W/22/3294599 and 3294600 (Shute) and the [name]/U1105/W/23/3333745 ([address]) and rural areas. Additional residents would also enhance the vitality of the local community and support local services. Taken together I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the Framework in these respects but the weight given to this conflict would be relatively low in the context of this appeal.

[site address] is located within the sustenance and/or landscape connectivity zones of the [name] and Caves Special Area of Conservation (SAC). This is particularly known for bats including the Bechstein’s, greater horseshoe and lesser horseshoe species.

The shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment submitted by the appellant concludes that in the absence of mitigation measures, there would be a [name] on the SAC, either ‘alone’ or ‘in-combination’ with other plans and projects, so an Appropriate Assessment is required. The Bat and [name] 2025 finds no evidence of bat roosts within the building but it, and the surrounding area, are important for foraging and connectivity.

Internal and external lighting associated with development can disrupt foraging and connectivity and the Lighting Impact Assessment October 2025 (LIA) is submitted in mitigation. There is the potential for a noticeable increase in the visibility of the site, a moderate increase in the level of sky glow, light spill and glare, and there would be a noticeable effect on baseline conditions moderately in excess of the recommended international CIE guidance levels. Accordingly proposals for lighting have put forward to minimise illumination of the dark zones surrounding the site.

I see no reason to suppose that measures to mitigate the effect on bats could not be put into place. However, I have reservations about the LIA given the extent of openings including roof lights and two large patio doors and the statement that “An assessment of lighting impacts terms of obtrusive light, and night-time visual impacts, are not included within the scope of this report.” (Para 1.1). The LIA presumes the proposed scheme is compliant with the ecological requirements (Part 8) but I have not seen confirmation from an ecologist that the proposed strategy to address light spill would be satisfactory in ecological terms.

Had the proposals been acceptable in other respects I would have sought clarification from the Parties as to whether the proposed internal lighting would be sufficient for most occupiers without the need for supplementary lighting; and/or whether any further mitigation such as automatic blinds and to address the effects of the patio doors when open; would be required. However, in view of my conclusions on the first main issue this is not necessary or appropriate.

For the above reasons I unable to conclude that an adverse [name] on the integrity of protected habitats and species from the proposal, either ‘alone’ or ‘in-combination’ with other plans and projects, can be ruled out beyond reasonable scientific doubt. I find conflict with Strategy 47 and Policy EN5 of the LP and those principles of the Framework that seek to protect important habitats. Moreover Regulation 63 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 therefore prevents me, as the competent authority for this appeal, from granting permission.

[name] and [name] are Grade II Listed Buildings of significance due to their age, architectural style and construction. These, and other Listed Buildings further away, are separated from the appeal site by buildings and hedges. Accordingly intervisibility is limited, and their historic significance and the settings in which they are appreciated is unaffected.

The appellants intend to live in the new dwelling as a self-build development. The Council has proposed a condition restricting occupation to self-build. However, such a condition would be likely to fail the test of enforceability so, in the context of this appeal, I give little extra weight to this.

Paragraph 11 of the Framework states that plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Council can only demonstrate between about 2.97 and 3.5 years supply of deliverable housing land and this could trigger the so-called “tilted balance” in favour of granting planning permission that would apply under Paragraph 11d). However, I have found that an adverse [name] on the integrity of protected habitats and species cannot be ruled out which provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. By virtue of Paragraph 11d(i) the presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore does not apply.

Moreover, a key element of Policy D8 for this particular appeal is whether it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that the building is no longer required for agricultural use or diversification purposes or that replacement buildings to fulfil a similar function would not be required. This is consistent with the Framework aims of the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses and the growth and expansion of all types of businesses in rural areas as well as the limiting development in National Landscapes.

The case before me differs from the Shute appeals, where the building had been used for the keeping of horses rather than for agriculture and the matter of the EDNL did not feature and from the [address] appeal which related to kennels rather than an agricultural building. Given the pivotal role of Policy D8 in this case, I find that, taken together, the policies that are most important for determining this particular appeal are not out-of-date.

Whether or not the tilted balance applies an additional dwelling would contribute towards the much needed supply of houses and would make efficient use of land. Small sites can often be built-out relatively quickly and in this case the appellants intend to occupy the dwelling. There would be economic benefits arising from construction and spend in the local economy. Additional residents would add support to services and vitality to the local villages and the rural community. Although these benefits are tempered by the small contribution that one house would make in the context of the current circumstances the additional dwelling would be valuable. The appearance of the proposed dwelling would not harm the character or appearance of the area or the EDNL. Taken together these benefits provide considerable support in favour of the proposal.

However, I have found that an adverse [name] on the integrity of protected habitats and species from the proposal, either ‘alone’ or ‘in-combination’ with other plans and projects, cannot be ruled out. It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the building is no longer required for agricultural use or diversification purposes or that replacement buildings to fulfil a similar function would not be required. There is no mechanism to prevent the proliferation of any replacement or new buildings that could have a detrimental effect on the landscape in the future. The site is not close to most day to day services and facilities and there is little opportunity for travel by means other than the private car. Taken together these harms substantially outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

In failing to comply with Policies of the LP as set out above, the proposal cannot be said to comply with the development plan as a whole. I have found insufficient material considerations to outweigh the conflict with the development plan. The appeal should be dismissed.