Appeal 6001716

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of replacement gabion retaining structure at Maycoes, Road from [name] to the [address], Branscombe, Devon, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/1912/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos P100 [name], 24/A047-01 and 1.0.

Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, details/samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the gabion retaining structure shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples and retained as such thereafter.

The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and implementation guidelines shown on drawing no. 1.0 in the first planting season following the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The completed landscaping works shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the maintenance guidelines shown on drawing no. 1.0 and any plants which within a period of 10 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

A landscaping plan was submitted with the appeal that was not before the Council when it made its decision. The Council’s assessment was, however, informed by planting shown on the final set of revised plans it considered. The appeal-stage plan provides further detail and clarification of that planting but does not alter the nature or scale of the development. As it does not materially change the proposal, and as its content is consistent with the scheme previously consulted upon, I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by my taking it into account. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to the East Devon National Landscape (EDNL).

The appeal site lies within the EDNL, where national policy and the development plan require great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty. Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 places a duty on decision-makers to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes.

The site forms part of a small cluster of dwellings on a steep valley side at the edge of Branscombe. The topography has resulted in a long-established pattern of domestic terraces, retaining structures and engineered garden features stepping down the slope, several of which are visible from public viewpoints and contribute to the settled, domesticated character of this part of the valley.

The proposal seeks to replace a failed brick retaining wall that currently defines the edge of the garden terrace. The new gabion structure would sit directly in front of the existing terrace and remain within the domestic curtilage. Its position, set against the existing garden platform and the dwelling above, means it would be perceived as part of the established garden infrastructure rather than as an outward projection into the open valley side.

In longer views from the opposite slope, the appeal site reads as part of a compact group of dwellings and garden structures. Within that context, the proposed wall would not extend the perceived envelope of development or introduce built form into an otherwise undeveloped part of the valley. The steep landform, intervening vegetation and the presence of other domestic retaining features would limit the prominence of the structure, and the alignment of the upper level with the existing terrace would reduce its apparent height. From closer viewpoints, the combination of landform and existing planting would further filter views.

The proposed soft landscaping forms an important part of the scheme’s landscape response. A native hedge at the base of the wall, together with planting within and around the gabion baskets, would break up the surface of the structure and soften its appearance. As this vegetation establishes, it would increasingly integrate the wall into the surrounding garden and wider valley landscape, reducing contrast and avoiding the sense of a stark engineered intervention.

Although the gabion wall is engineered in form, it would be introduced into a setting where domestic retaining structures are already characteristic. Its scale, siting and relationship with the existing terrace mean it would read as a functional garden feature associated with the dwelling, consistent with the settled domestic character of this part of the valley. It would not erode the underlying rural qualities of the wider protected landscape or disrupt the natural landform beyond the confines of the existing garden.

Taken together, these factors mean the proposed development would not result in material harm to the character or appearance of the area, and it would conserve the qualities for which the EDNL is designated. The proposal therefore accords with Policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 – 2031 (LP), which seeks development that respects the key characteristics and special qualities of its surroundings. It also complies with Strategies 7 and 46 of the LP, which require the conservation and enhancement of the district’s varied landscapes and the protection of the distinctive character and scenic beauty of National Landscapes. The statutory duty to further the purposes of National Landscapes, particularly the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, is therefore also satisfied.

The proposed structure would be visible from parts of [address], but the separation and the presence of intervening vegetation would limit its perceived scale. In this context, it would not appear dominant or create an oppressive sense of enclosure, and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers would not be unacceptably affected.

The enlarged terrace would allow some views towards the neighbouring garden and dwelling, but these would be softened by planting and are characteristic of the mutual visibility typical of this hillside setting. The proposal would not therefore result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.

The structure would lie to the north of [address] and, given the separation and topography, would not materially reduce sunlight or daylight reaching the property. No substantive evidence has been provided to indicate otherwise.

Concerns have been raised about the stability of the gabion wall and the potential risk to neighbouring land. No technical evidence has been submitted to suggest that the proposed structure would be unstable or pose a safety hazard. Matters of detailed engineering design fall within other regulatory regimes, and nothing before me indicates that the development would give rise to an unacceptable risk or undermine the stability of adjoining land.

Drainage concerns have also been raised. The works relate to an existing domestic terrace, and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would materially increase surface water run-off or cause drainage problems. On the information available, there is no basis to conclude that the development would lead to adverse drainage effects.

The site lies within a bat consultation zone, but the works relate to an existing domestic garden and do not involve the removal of features typically associated with bat foraging or roosting. No ecological evidence has been submitted to indicate that protected species would be affected.

It is also questioned by interested parties whether the proposed wall lies wholly within the applicant’s land. The appeal is determined on the basis of the red line boundary and ownership certificates submitted with the application, and no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the development would extend beyond land within the applicant’s control. Any boundary or ownership disputes are private civil matters and fall outside the scope of the planning system.

A standard time limit condition is required. In the interests of certainty, a condition is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. To secure an appropriate appearance and ensure that the structure assimilates satisfactorily into the landscape, conditions are also necessary to control the external materials of the gabion cages and infill, and to secure the implementation and maintenance of the proposed soft landscaping.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.