Appeal 6002049

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on; (i) the character and appearance of the surrounding area with particular regard to [address], a [name] listed building; and, (ii) on highway safety.

The appeal site forms a small paddock along the side of [site address] and adjacent to the [name] listed Sharlands House1. During my visit I noted that between the main road and [address] there were a number of examples of more urban features such as a retaining walls, cuttings, and driveways. In the other direction, away from the appeal site, I noted two properties with driveways that breach the embankment and hedgerow. However, surrounding the appeal site the lane is characterised by mature hedgerows raised on planted banks that bound the narrow and sunken carriageway. I understand this to be an historic Devon hedge bank. Collectively the lane creates the sense of being within a much more rural location.

[address] is a detached Arts and Crafts dwelling built in the Georgian revival style. It was formerly located at the edge of town and was built for [name] an artist and silversmith known for his landscapes. However, it was lived in by [name] a GP and naturalist. I find the significance of this building stems in part from the extent to which its historic connection to the countryside is still legible irrespective of the way in which Braunton has grown around it. Moreover, I find the importance of this rural connection is furthered by the association the above individuals had to the natural environment. 1

By way of the removal of a section of hedgerow the proposal would erode the green character of this part of the lane. This would be exacerbated by the reprofiling of the bank and the creation of an apron serving the access which would visually widen the carriageway. The proposal would therefore harm the narrow and green character important to this part of the lane. Although the use of wood for the gate would be appropriate for the area, the design appears to be nondescript and suburban. It would not therefore, be sympathetic to, or reflect, its more rural setting. [name] am mindful of the above noted suburban elements and breaches to the hedge bank, these are some distance from the appeal site. Moreover, they are not so significant as to alter the verdant and rural character of this section of the lane. Consequently, these features do not justify similar development.

The proposal would be visible in both directions along the lane, including from in front of [address]. Although the gate would be set back from the carriageway, it would still be visible in relation to the wider street scene and the listed building. Therefore, and given the above, the proposal would be detrimental to the setting of [address] through the encroachment of suburban features and the loss of the historic hedge bank. The proposal would consequently harm the significance of the listed building.

In light of the above, and given the scale of the development, I find that a low degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset would occur. Although less than substantial, considerable importance and weight should be given to any asset’s conservation. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

I recognise that the proposal is intended to support the management of the site by allowing a tractor into the field. I am also mindful of the appellant’s mobility needs. Preventing the site from becoming overgrown would ensure that its visual appearance as a paddock is retained. This would benefit the character and appearance of the lane as well as the context of [address]. However, it has not been suitably demonstrated that alternative, and less harmful, options are not available. Therefore, whilst the proposal would have the potential to bring about some public benefit this would be very limited. This does not, in the circumstances of this appeal, outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset.

In light of the above, the proposal would unacceptably affect the character and appearance of [site address] to the detriment of the significance of [address]. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies DM04, DM07, DM08a, ST04 and ST15 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 (the LP). These policies collectively seek high quality development that responds to and reinforces locally distinctive and characteristic features, with particular regard to the preservation of the historic environment. The proposal also conflicts with Policies BE1, NE4 and NE6 of the Braunton Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2031 which similarly seek high quality design that responds to its surroundings, and which protects Devon bank hedgerows. The proposal further conflicts with the Framework, particularly Chapters 12 and 16 which seek to create well designed places that conserve the historic environment.

As noted above, [site address] is a narrow road and is tightly bounded by embankments. The carriageway cannot accommodate vehicles passing and, due to the steep banks, pedestrians must walk in the road. Although the lane is predominantly straight, affording good views, it contained two notable bends that broke these up. My site visit can only provide a snapshot in time but, during my visit traffic levels, and the speed of motor vehicles, were low. I also noted a number of pedestrians of varying ages, and some cyclists. I note that both parties found similarly in these regards.

Although the proposed access provides a splayed apron opening onto the lane, it has not been demonstrated what level of intervisibility would be provided. Particularly, I cannot be certain that vehicles leaving the site would be afforded views past the hedgerow and embankment. Although vehicle speeds are low, there would still be a risk of conflict between those using the lane and those leaving the site. There would also be a risk of conflict with pedestrians, particularly children as they would likely be screened by even the lowest portions of the embankment. I am mindful that the access is intended for use only infrequently and therefore that the above risk to highway safety would be limited to these occasions. However, the intensity of the use could change over time dependant on the needs of the site or appellant. Similarly, although the driving position of tractors can be more elevated, and so may allow views over the embankment, I have not been given any evidence that this would be the case and, nevertheless, the vehicle used could change.

The appellant has suggested that the formation of a longer visibility splay, by removing a greater portion of hedge and embankment, would not be appropriate as it would harm the character and appearance of the lane. While this may be the case, it does not justify the harm identified above to highway safety.

While the open gate would not encroach onto the carriageway, its positioning would prevent vehicles from waiting off the road while opening and closing the gate. This would cause vehicles accessing and egressing the site to block the lane. However, given the low traffic speeds and good visibility on approach to the site, this would not result in any unacceptable risk to highway safety. Moreover, given traffic levels it is unlikely that the flow of vehicles would be significantly affected, especially considering the short amount of time it would likely take to open or close the gate.

The formation of an access suitable for a motor vehicle would create a slope down to the road which would allow the free flow of surface water and detritus onto the carriageway. Flowing water, mud and other objects, such as stones or sticks, would likely reduce the safety of the lane for road users. Although it has been suggested that conditions could be imposed on any permission to ensure a surface water gulley is provided, I cannot be certain from the evidence before me that such an option would be viable. If, in the event the appeal was allowed, it was subsequently found that a drainage gulley was not suitable, it may put pressure on allowing the scheme to continue without appropriate mitigation.

Given the above, the proposal would harm highway safety and would therefore conflict with LP Policy DM05. This policy requires developments to ensure safe and well-designed accesses which considers the needs of all highway users, including pedestrians and cyclists. It also conflicts with Paragraphs 115(b) and 116 of the Framework which similarly seek safe and suitable accesses for all users to prevent unacceptable impacts on highway safety.

I note the appellant’s suggestion that the bat corridor formed by the existing hedgerow may be unaffected by the proposal. However, this would be a lack of harm and, therefore is not a benefit that weighs in favour of the proposal.

Reference has been made to a permission granted by the Council (reference

and I note the comparisons made. However, I have not been provided with the full details and facts of this application and decision. Whilst other planning decisions are capable of being material considerations, all decisions turn on their own particular circumstances, based on the facts and evidence before those decision-makers at the time. Therefore, I cannot make any meaningful comparisons to the appeal scheme before me, which I must consider on its own merits.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including a listed building, and would harm highway safety, conflicting with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.