Appeal 6002256

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the Ashford Conservation Area (CA), and • whether the proposal would accord with the strategy of the Development Plan including in respect of affordable housing and housing need.

The site consists of parts of a sloping field adjacent to [address] to the north of Ashford. The field is located within the North Devon Downs character area of the Devon Character Assessment (DCA). Features of the site and the wider character area include a simple, strongly agricultural landscape with a rural, sparsely settled and peaceful character. [name] guidelines include protection of the sparce pattern of nucleated settlements, nestled in valleys and landform dips.

The appeal site is relatively close to the CA. Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The CA encompasses the historic core of the village, including its church and dwellings of a traditional design. Relevant to this appeal, its significance is the age and attractive, rural village character of its buildings and spaces. As open, green countryside, the site contributes positively to the rural setting of the CA.

The proposal seeks to erect five dwellings, together with garages and an access road on part of the field. Separate parts of the field would be used for drainage, and as enhanced grassland. The dwellings would front onto [address], adjacent to existing properties either side, and so they would not be isolated for the purposes of paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The chalet design of the dwellings would broadly reflect others on [address], some of which are dormer bungalows.

Even so, the erection of the dwellings, garages and the access road, together with the necessary retaining walls, would result in appreciable new development. This would form a ribbon that would intrude into the countryside here, detracting from its attractive, open appearance. The formalised angled visibility splays, though formed by relocated hedgerow, would add to the harmful domesticating effects of the proposal. The design of its layout would also appear unduly suburban, being based around small cul-de-sacs.

On this basis, the proposal would not accord with the agricultural and sparsely settled character of the landscape as identified by the DCA. Nor would it protect the pattern of nucleated settlements. For the same reasons, by building on land which forms part of the countryside around the village, the proposal would undermine the rural character and setting of the CA and its significance.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) identifies locations from where the proposal would be visible. Seen from longer distances in the wider landscape, such as from the [name] or rising valley slopes, the proposal would not be prominent. Closer to the site, hedging would filter some views, and the design and position of the dwellings seeks to minimise their impacts. There is little intervisibility between the appeal site and the CA, at least from publicly obtainable locations.

Even so, the proposal including its visibility splays, the widened entrance, and the built form itself would be visible from [address], from where it would have permanent and significant adverse visual effects. The proposal would have more minor but still harmful effects when seen from other locations, such as the footpath north of the site (LVIA viewpoint five), and to the south of the village (LVIA viewpoint six). Reference has been made to other approved developments elsewhere in the village, but I have few details of these, preventing useful comparison.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the CA as a whole. It would therefore conflict with policies ST04, DM04 and DM08A of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan (the Local Plan), adopted October 2018. These require a high quality of design which contributes positively to local distinctiveness, and avoids adverse landscape impacts. It would also conflict with the similar requirements of the Framework. Accordingly, I give this harm and conflict significant negative weight.

For the same reasons, I find conflict with Local Plan policy ST15, which seeks to conserve heritage assets (in this case the CA). The level of harm to the significance of the CA would be at the lower end of the ‘less than substantial’ range of Framework paragraph 215. Nevertheless, I give this harm great weight, as required by policy ST15 and Framework paragraph 212. The Framework at paragraph 202, and Local Plan policy DM07, require that the harm should be weighed against public benefits, an exercise that I shall undertake under [name].

Local Plan policy ST01 relates to the principle of sustainable development, which I shall consider below. The refusal reason refers to Local Plan policy ST03. However, this relates to climate change, including in respect of flooding and biodiversity. As these are not matters of dispute, I find no conflict with this policy.

Local Plan policy ST07 sets out the spatial strategy for development within the rural area. [name], such as Ashford, it permits appropriately located development that would meet locally generated needs. Local Plan policy DM24 provides relevant requirements for such proposals. A detached part of the application site adjoins the village, on [address]. That said, this area is not proposed for substantive built form, but as fenced and managed neutral grassland.

The new dwellings themselves are proposed along [address]. Here, the pattern of development is one of sporadic built form, separated by countryside from the nucleus of Ashford, which is focused on [address]. This part of the appeal site forms a significant gap of undeveloped land between Allwinds and The Linhay, beyond which is a further large gap. As such, the development site does not directly adjoin the built form of Ashford, or constitute part of a small closely grouped or continuous form of housing. It would not therefore be appropriately located. Consequently, it would conflict with policies ST07 and DM24(a).

Policies ST07 and DM24 require development to be for dwellings that would meet a local need, and policies DM24(d) and ST17 require them to be no larger than justified by that need. Unlike at East Anstey1, the proposal includes one affordable home, with the remaining four units being market dwellings. All would have a principal residence limitation, preventing occupation as holiday or second homes.

Current housing records may not reflect hidden needs, such as young people who have moved away, or older people wishing to downsize. However, I have little substantive evidence of a housing need within Ashford, and so the proposal is somewhat speculative. Furthermore, there is no dispute that it would have a greater proportion of larger houses than the need identified for the northern Devon area2.

People in adjoining parishes could benefit from the affordable unit under the local connection cascade. Nonetheless, I have little to show that the proposal would meet locally identified needs. Conditions limiting occupation to principal residences may be used elsewhere but no Local Plan support for them here has been identified. I therefore find that policies ST07, ST17 and DM24(d) are not met.

Policy DM24(e) requires proposals to not harm the rural character and setting of the village. Given my findings in respect of the first main issue, this would also not be complied with. Policy DM24(f) requires that secure arrangements are made to ensure that the housing remains available to meet local needs over the long term. A draft planning obligation [name] (UU) has been submitted. Amongst other things, this makes provision for affordable housing and the principal residence restriction. However, the UU has not been executed, and so its arrangements are not secured, conflicting with policy DM24(f). 1 PINS reference APP/X1118/W/24/3353078 2 Council’s Housing and Economic Needs Assessment 2016.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would not accord with the strategy of the Development Plan, including in respect of affordable housing and housing need. As such, it would conflict with Local Plan policies ST07, ST17 and DM24. I give this harm and conflict significant negative weight in the planning balance.

Local Plan policy ST21 seeks to manage the delivery of housing. Policy ST21(2) sets out circumstances where proposals outside of settlement limits will be permitted in certain circumstances. There is no dispute that policy ST21(2) is engaged.

That said, the policy’s supporting text states that such sites would normally adjoin the principal built form of defined settlements without development boundaries. However, for the reasons already given, the residential development proposed would not adjoin the main built form of Ashford. On this basis, it would not be consistent with the development strategy for the village, thus conflicting with policy ST21(2)(c). Furthermore, policy ST21(2)(d) requires compliance with other Local Plan policies, which I have already found would not be the case. It follows that policy ST21 does not support the proposal.

Although the Council can demonstrate a housing supply of over 4.5 years, this does not amount to an adequate supply as required by the Framework. In such circumstances, Framework paragraph 11 requires that planning 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. Local Plan policy ST01 has a similar requirement. There is no dispute that Framework footnote seven does not apply to the proposal.

I have found conflict with Local Plan policies ST04, ST07, ST15, ST17, DM04, DM08A and DM24, which are broadly consistent with the Framework, as are policies ST01 and DM7. Against that, the proposal would make a positive contribution to the housing supply, of five units. Given the relatively small number of units proposed, I give these benefits moderate positive weight.

Future occupiers of the proposal would make social and economic contributions to the area. It could be delivered quickly, and would help the SME building industry. The proposal includes a [name] slightly above 10%, with a lengthy new native species hedgerow along the southern boundary of the site. The houses would be built to high environmental standards. I give these benefits further limited positive weight.

As well as controlling occupation of the dwellings, the draft UU makes provision for contributions to education and public open space. As an alternative to the latter, the draft UU proposes the laying out of a new Village Green, which I understand is sought by the Parish Council. Only limited details of the location of the Village Green have been provided, which would be outside of the application site, and so may be subject to change. In any case, and notwithstanding the Council’s legal concerns, the draft UU has not been finalised or executed. As such, I can give the benefits reliant on it only very little positive weight.

Consequently, I conclude that the public benefits of the proposal are not sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the CA, and so the test of Framework paragraph 202 is not met. It follows that the proposal would also not accord with Local Plan policy DM07.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications for planning permission, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Given the harms and benefits identified above, and the weight I give to them, I consider that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework read in the round. Similarly, the balance of policy ST01 does not favour the proposal.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, including the Framework, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.