Appeal 6001637

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is made in outline with all matters other than access reserved for later consideration. Therefore, I have assessed the submitted plans as illustrative insofar as they relate to the reserved matters.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on local housing needs.

The appeal site comprises a particularly large parcel of land that forms part of an expansive field. This field is outside of but adjoining a new housing estate that is in a rural settlement.

Policy DEV8 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (JLP) seeks to deliver a wide choice of high-quality homes which widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. It advises that needs across the plan area include homes that redress an imbalance in the housing stock. Other particular requirements are for homes suitable for households with specific needs as well as dwellings suited to younger people, working families and older people who wish to remain self-sufficient.

The appellant references a recent appeal decision in Folly Gate1 and contends that there is a clear need for larger properties in Inwardleigh, relying on both Census data and local housing demand evidence. The 2021 Census shows that Inwardleigh has a significantly higher proportion of households with four or more occupants when compared with 16.2% across [name] and 19.9% nationally. This indicates there is a greater presence of larger families in the parish. In addition, the Council’s own Parish Profile data demonstrates strong demand for 1 APP/Q1153/W/25/3359861 larger homes, with 4‐bed units attracting 96 bids, far exceeding the interest shown in 2‐ and 3‐bed homes, which received 35 and 17 bids respectively. This data is however relevant to affordable rented properties, which does not apply to this scheme.

The appellant also highlights evidence of an existing oversupply of 3‐bed dwellings in the local area, particularly within the nearby [address] development, reinforcing their argument that the housing stock lacks larger units and that the proposed dwelling would help to re‐balance this mix. That said, the evidence also shows that the majority of households in the parish contain up to 2 people, with a comparatively small number of 1 or 2 bed properties. While there is shown to be a demand for both types of accommodation, the need for smaller units is likely to be more acute.

It is conceivable that a 1 or 2 bed property could be advanced with a reserved matters application. However, the unusually large scale of the plot and commentary within the submissions indicates that a much larger property would be most likely. The appellant raises an appeal decision in Exbourne2 where a downstairs bedroom was considered to meet an identified need in respect of DEV8. Even so, although an adaptable family home could be delivered, which would align with parts of DEV8, there is little evidence the development would widen opportunities for home ownership, be affordable for working families, or suited to those most in need in the area. There would consequently still be some conflict with DEV8 and paragraph 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) where the objective is to meet an area’s identified housing need.

In that context, it is claimed that the proposal would be a self-build, where local demand outweighs supply. Notwithstanding the Council’s position on this matter, there is however no mechanism before me to secure the proposal in this way. Having paid regard to the Worcester appeal3, any such local housing needs benefits cannot be relied upon.

Although JLP Policy DEV8 does not specifically reference housing densities, SPT2 is clear that the plan’s overall strategy is to create neighbourhoods and communities that provide for higher density living appropriate to the local area that are best connected to sustainable transport, services, and amenities. This is consistent with paragraph 129 of the Framework which says, in part, that decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account the identified need for different types of housing and the availability of land suitable for accommodating it.

It is claimed that a single dwelling on this plot would create a transition between the estate and adjoining countryside, thus maintaining the area’s prevailing character and setting, as supported in Framework paragraph 129. However, the indicative layout shows several buildings that could all be dwellings in their own right, which does little to support the case for a transitionary arrangement. Even if a well landscaped, different layout were to follow, there is little substantive reason why more than one unit of accommodation could not maintain the area’s character and setting. 2 APP/Q1153/W/25/3365242 3 APP/J1860/W/24/3354156

Furthermore, this would also provide an opportunity for higher density development on available land, with good connectivity to the rest of the settlement. In turn, the same site area could conceivably achieve a mix of housing more closely aligned with the most acute identified local need for smaller accommodation. In addition, the Council’s 5-year housing land supply position falls well short of what is required. In these circumstances, a single dwelling in an oversized plot would be entirely at odds with local and national objectives to make an efficient use of land.

The appeal decisions at Wilminstone4 and Lamerton5 submitted by the parties only go to show that each decision turns on its site-specific circumstances. Therefore, although the proposal would only have a marginal impact on the balance of the local housing stock, a more efficient use of land would evidently be more appropriate to the local area.

As such, in these particular circumstances, and for the reasons given, the proposal would not respond positively to local housing needs. There would consequently be conflict with JLP policies DEV8, SPT1, and SPT2.

I have concluded above that although impacts on the local housing stock would be marginal, an efficient use of land would not result. The policies identified in this respect are consistent with the Framework and can be afforded significant weight. Therefore, as a whole, the proposal would be in conflict with the development plan.

It is undisputed that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, where there is a current supply of about 2.53 years. Paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework indicates that where the required supply cannot be demonstrated, 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.

It adds in 11 d) ii. that particular regard is paid to key policies for making efficient use of land. Such provisions are identified in footnote 9 and set out in paragraph 129, amongst others. There is no dispute that the appeal site could be safely accessed and is well located, which would accord with paragraph 115. However, I have concluded above that the proposal would not make efficient use of land, which conflicts with paragraphs 61 and 129.

The social benefits of housing delivery carry significant weight, though these are tempered by the fact a single dwelling would make a very modest contribution to addressing a notable shortfall. The scheme would also bring some limited economic benefits to the construction industry and thereafter through extra consumer spending in the local economy.

Additionally, as it has not been shown how self-build housing could be secured, the support in paragraph 129 in the Framework for this different type of housing carries little weight. In that context, as I cannot be certain that the development would be delivered as self-build housing, and having paid regard to the BNG assessment, it is not clear whether or not the requirements and possible benefits 4 APP/Q1153/W/22/3292581 5 APP/Q1153/W/21/3282233 with respect to biodiversity net gain could be achieved. As such, I attach little weight to any environmental gains.

Against any of the aforementioned benefits, I need to balance the adverse impacts. The need to deliver sustainable patterns of growth is an important consideration and one which is enshrined in the Framework. The harm arising from the inefficient use of land at a time when the Council is unable to deliver the requisite number of homes would run contrary to the social and environmental objectives of sustainable development.

Overall, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. As such, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out within Framework paragraph 11.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says development should be in accordance with the development plan ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’, and this is reaffirmed in the Framework. In this respect, I acknowledge the case law cited by the appellant which emphasises that the development plan should be considered as a whole.

I have concluded above that the proposal would not respond positively to local housing needs. As such, there would be overall conflict with the development plan. Furthermore, even when considered cumulatively, there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.