Appeal 6002059

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council is preparing the East Devon Local Plan 2020 to 2042 (ELP). It is currently at consultation stage and therefore attracts limited weight.

The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a small sloping field. It fronts a modest rural lane and rises to the south where it abuts the curtilage of existing dwellings. It is separated from the lane by cleft fencing that stands at the top of a bank. Although buildings stand at a higher level to the south of the site and can be seen easily from the main road, they are not prominent to view from the lane owing to the substantial hedge that grows along the southern boundary of the site and the change in level. Beyond the hardstanding associated with the Hotel, the lane is distinctly rural and provides a pleasant connection from the village core to the attractive countryside to the east and southeast. Thus, although the appeal site abuts the developed area of the adjacent Hotel, [site address] and [address] Chalet, it is more readily associated with the surrounding countryside and is beyond the confines of the village.

The appeal site is within the East Devon National Landscape (EDNL). The Council advises that it falls within a character area that can be described as steep wooded scarp slopes that have a strong sense of tranquillity and magnificent views over surrounding valleys and across to scarps. The land to the east of the appeal site provides an attractive view, and within a short distance from the village edge and activity of the main road is notably tranquil.

The proposal would see the small field altered by laying a prominent driveway from the lane up to the higher level to the south. The drawings do not clearly represent the change. A site section shows an area that would be lowered and an area that would be built up but this is not cross referenced with any other plan to show where this section is taken from. The street elevation drawing implies that the existing fencing is at road level, whereas it is significantly higher than the road and on the top of a bank, so it is not clear from the submission how the initial change in level would be managed. Additionally, there is nothing on the plans to show how access between the proposed parking area and the two dwellings would be provided. This would presumably involve removing some of the existing hedge.

In any case, it is clear that providing an access drive across the sloping site would require cutting into the bank adjacent to the road and some further re-profiling across the depth of the site. The change to the appearance of the small parcel of land would be considerable, particularly as its slope means it is prominent to view from the lane. It would alter its character so that it reads as part of the developed area of the village rather than an adjacent portion of undeveloped countryside. It would therefore harm the character and appearance of the lane, and the way that the undeveloped landscape of the EDNL intersects with the developed area of the village.

The extent of harm to the character and appearance of this part of the lane would be considerable. The harm to the wider character and appearance of the EDNL would however be modest as it is a relatively discreet portion of land in the context of the wider landscape, but it would nevertheless represent an increase to the developed extent of the village into an undeveloped portion of the EDNL.

Details of two other schemes are before me, that included the formation of a parking area in a similar location to the appeal proposal, with access achieved through the neighbouring Hotel site to the west. Whilst these would also have altered the appearance of the appeal site, neither included a driveway down over the field and would not have therefore resulted in the same level of harm.

The provision of the new access would mean that [site address] and [address] Chalet would no longer be served by an access off the A35. The current access would however remain in place for the use of the Hotel and there is nothing to suggest that it is unsafe. It appears to have good visibility and is in the context of many other individual and shared accesses within the village. Therefore, whilst I accept that the A35 carries a significant volume of traffic, a modest reduction to the use of the existing access in the context of all the other access points in the nearby area would be of very limited benefit to highway safety.

The appellant submits that the existing access to the dwellings through the Hotel site is regularly blocked by parked cars. This is however strongly disputed by the General Manager of the Hotel, who reports the opposite problem whereby vehicles associated with [site address] and [address] Chalet are parked in the Hotel parking areas. Shared access arrangements such as this are commonplace. No reasons are given to explain why the existing arrangement is unable to work. This would therefore appear to be a civil matter between the respective landowners and something that should consequently attract little weight.

The matters I have referred to above in support of the proposal carry limited weight, and are not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area, which includes the impact on the EDNL. Furthermore, Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) establishes that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. Therefore, in summary, I find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would not accord with Policy D1 and Strategy 46 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 and Policy OL02 of the ELP. Together these seek to ensure that development proposals respect key characteristics and spatial qualities of an area, including that of the EDNL

The Council referred to Policy SP06 of the ELP in its decision. This relates to development beyond settlement boundaries. Whilst the site is outside a settlement boundary, with reference to the Council’s officer report the proposal is essentially householder related development where the principle is usually acceptable subject to detail. I can see no reason to take a different approach, and Policy SP06 of the ELP has not therefore been determinative.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.