Appeal 6002448

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a [name] at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0180/OUT, and subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this decision.

The appeal is made in outline with all matters reserved for future consideration. I have therefore assessed the submitted details as merely illustrative insofar as they relate to the reserved matters.

The appeal site is within the Blackdown Hills National Landscape (NL). Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) therefore places a duty on me to seek to further the purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area.

Since the Council made its decision on the appeal proposal, a second public consultation has taken place on the draft Local Plan. However, it remains in draft form and is yet to be submitted for examination. Accordingly, the emerging local plan attracts limited weight and I have determined the appeal based on the adopted development plan. In any event, the draft policies cited do not significantly alter the approach to consideration of the main issues.

The appellant submitted a legal agreement with the appeal, dated 2 December 2025, made as a Deed pursuant to section 106 of the 1990 Act and imposing obligations on the site ([name], UU). During the course of the appeal, an updated version of the UU (dated 13 April 2026), including some additional details in light of the Council’s comments, was provided. I have had regard to the latest UU in reaching my decision.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be in an appropriate location, having regard to development in the countryside and access to services and facilities; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the NL; and • the effect of the proposed development on the River Axe Special Area of Conservation (SAC), with particular regard to phosphate levels.

The appeal site is within [site address] . However, Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013 to 2031 (EDLP) defines the countryside as all parts of the plan area that are outside of its Built-Up Area Boundaries (BUAB) and site-specific allocations. The EDLP does not identify [site address] as a settlement with a BUAB and the available evidence indicates that the site is also not within a site-specific allocation.

The site is therefore within the defined countryside and [name] 7 restricts development in the countryside to that which, amongst other aspects, is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development. No such policy has been put to me and the self-build nature of the proposal does not change this.

Although the area is rural, there are numerous properties in the locality. There are also some services and facilities including a primary school, village hall, church and sports field within a short distance of the site, whilst bus stops providing relatively good connections to larger settlements are also within walking distance. However, accessing these without a vehicle would involve either using unmade footpaths and/or the surrounding highway network with neither lighting nor separation from vehicles. Walking and cycling to these would therefore be neither particularly appealing nor safe. The distance to other services and facilities (including shops needed for day-to-day living and employment opportunities) in the wider area would be prohibitive in terms of walking; whilst cycling, even considering the route to Axminster would be on National Cycle Route 33 and part of it includes an off-road section, would likely only appeal to more experienced cyclists. In coming to this view, I have taken account of the distance, topography and the nature and visibility of the highway.

I accept that this is likely to be the case for many rural areas in general. Amongst other aspects, the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) also recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas. However, the site’s context indicates that the private vehicle would likely be used for a majority of future occupiers’ trips. Such reliance on the private vehicle also indicates that the proposal would have an adverse environmental impact.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not be in an appropriate location in relation to development plan policies regarding development in the countryside and access to services and facilities. I therefore find that it conflicts with EDLP Policy TC2 and Strategies 3, 5B and 7. Amongst other aspects, these: restrict development in the countryside to certain circumstances; and require development to minimise environmental harm and the need to travel by car, be accessible by pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, and encourage and allow for efficient, safe and accessible means of transport with overall low impact on the environment.

The site forms part of an undeveloped parcel of agricultural land situated in a rural area dominated by fields, hedgerows and trees. On this basis, it positively contributes to the rural character and verdant appearance of the surrounding area and the NL, whose special qualities include its rural character, field-patterned landscapes divided by hedgerows and interspersed with woodlands. The degree of separation between properties on [address] generally increases when approaching the site from [address] and the site also provides an undeveloped gap between built form. Although planting on the site’s frontage with the Lane limits appreciation of this, the gap is perceptible through the existing access and from the public footpath that runs beside and beyond the site.

However, properties and associated residential paraphernalia are present and visible either side of the site and on the opposite side of [address]. The available evidence also indicates that there is now more built form in the locality than was present when the last planning application on the site was determined. In addition, I observed on my visit that the spacing between buildings beyond the site varies rather than continues to increase, with the degree of separation between some properties being similar to those nearer to the junction with [address]. The current nature and extent of development in the site’s vicinity means that [address] therefore reads as having a relatively suburban character, with the undeveloped rural surroundings generally providing the wider background context to the Lane.

On this basis and subject to detailed design, the development of a dwelling on the site would not appear incongruous or out of place in relation to its immediate suburban context. Yet, as the previous Inspector found, development of the site would erode the undeveloped gap it provides and consolidate residential development along [address]. The appeal proposal would also urbanise the site, separate it from the rest of the open field and increase the extent of suburban character and built form experienced from both the footpath and – given the likely need to either cut back planting around the existing access, alter it or provide an alternative – the Lane. The appeal proposal would therefore be detrimental to the rural character and verdant appearance of the wider area and NL. Consistent with this, the appellant accepts there would be some change to the landscape.

However, the level of harm would not be significant given the scale of the proposed development and that it could be designed at reserved matters stage to reflect its immediate suburban context and maintain a sense of space between properties. The level of importance one may assign to the existing extent of undeveloped gap provided by the site does not lead me to a different conclusion. Soft landscaping could also be provided to limit views of it from the Lane and the public footpath and soften the development’s appearance. Accordingly, the harm would be localised and limited. In addition, the planting of trees outside of the site, secured by the updated UU, would positively contribute to the character and appearance of the locality and NL.

Nevertheless, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would, overall, harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the natural beauty of the [name]. Although the harm would not be significant, it therefore conflicts with [name] 46 and Policy TC4. Amongst other aspects, these expect development to be sympathetic to and help conserve and enhance landscape quality and local distinctiveness, particularly of NLs; and seek to avoid a reduction in the attractiveness of existing footpaths.

The appeal site is within the catchment of the [name], which has phosphorus concentrations at levels harmful to the favourable functioning of the waterbody. With the development having the potential to increase nutrients entering the catchment, the appeal proposal, alone and/or in-combination with other relevant development, would therefore be likely to have a significant effect on the SAC, which is in unfavourable conservation status. Accordingly, under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, Appropriate Assessment of the implications of the project for the designated site in view of its conservation objectives is required.

The qualifying features of the SAC include Sea lamprey, Brook lamprey, Bullhead, and water courses of plain to montane levels with floating vegetation. The conservation objectives for the designated site seek to ensure that its integrity is maintained or restored and that the site contributes to achieving the Favourable Conservation Status of the [name] by maintaining or restoring the: extent and distribution of qualifying habitats and habitats of qualifying species; structure and function of qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species; supporting processes on which qualifying natural habitats and the habitats of qualifying species rely; and the populations and distribution of qualifying species. The submitted Natural England River Axe SAC [name] also sets out that the river’s natural nutrient regime should be protected and that any anthropogenic enrichment above natural/background concentrations should be limited to levels at which adverse effects on characteristic biodiversity are unlikely.

Without mitigation, it would not be possible to ascertain that the development would not adversely affect the SAC’s integrity through the effects of increased phosphate levels from wastewater further harming its interest features. However, the total annual phosphorus load (of 0.34kg TP/yr, including 20% buffer) arising from wastewater treated by the proposed packaged treatment plant (PTP) would be offset by ceasing all agricultural activity and creating a woodland on adjoining land currently used for grazing. The updated UU secures these measures, along with further details regarding the creation, maintenance and monitoring of the woodland and the provision, management and maintenance of the PTP.

The available evidence indicates that this is sufficient to mitigate the effects of the development on the designated site. Confirming this, Natural England have indicated that the mitigation would ensure the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC. On this basis, I am able to ascertain, as the competent authority undertaking Appropriate Assessment, that the integrity of the designated site would not be adversely affected by the development proposed. In relation to this main issue, the proposal would therefore not conflict with EDLP Policy EN5 and Strategies 3 and 5 which, amongst other aspects, seek to conserve the environment and protect wildlife and designated areas.

The appellant has raised various concerns regarding the Council’s approach to determining the planning application. However, I have limited my considerations to the planning matters before me because issues regarding conduct are not determinative as to the acceptability of the appeal proposal.

In addition to the updated UU securing the proposal as a self-build dwelling, it includes obligations related to SAC mitigation, as set out above. The available evidence indicates that these obligations accord with relevant policy and are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; are directly related to the development; and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to it. Accordingly, I find that the obligations in the Deed meet the tests set out in the Framework and the [name] (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended). Collectively, they therefore constitute a reason for granting planning permission in accordance with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations.

A number of other matters have been raised by various parties and I have taken them all into account. This includes: the effect on the living conditions of existing residents, including with respect to privacy, outlook and noise; safety and traffic issues on [address]; the safety and amenity of footpath users; the effect on wildlife; current drainage issues on the site and the proposal increasing the risk of flooding; the effect on heritage assets; the Parish not needing any more housing; the effect on infrastructure, including with regards to water supply; precedent; previous applications on the site being refused permission and dismissed at appeal; and errors and inconsistencies in the appellant’s documents.

However, whilst I take these representations seriously, I have not been presented with compelling evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would result in unacceptable effects in relation to any of these matters. Consequently, they do not lead me to a different overall conclusion that the appeal should be allowed. Some of the issues raised, such as regarding drainage/flooding and wildlife can also be covered by conditions, whilst privacy and outlook matters would be resolved at detailed design stage in relation to the dwelling’s scale and layout for example.

The proposed development would not be in an appropriate location in relation to development plan policies regarding development in the countryside and access to services and facilities; and would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the special qualities of the NL. The resulting conflict with various policies leads me to conclude that the proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole. However, the available evidence indicates that the Council is only able to demonstrate a housing supply of approximately 2.97 years, which is a significant shortfall. The lack of a sufficient supply of deliverable housing sites means that the approach set out in paragraph 11d) of the Framework applies.

The Framework sets out that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The harm to the NL and to the character and appearance of the area in general therefore attracts great weight. However, given that the harm to the NL would be limited and localised, the application of Framework policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance do not provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

The scale of the proposed development means that its benefits would be relatively modest. However, it would make a small but nonetheless important contribution, on a windfall basis, to housing supply in an area with a significant shortfall and could be built out relatively quickly. Given its context, the proposed dwelling would also form part of the existing settlement and thereby support the vitality of the rural community and local services, as well as provide some construction employment.

In addition, the UU secures the dwelling as a self-build. Even if the Council is meeting its minimum legal requirements in relation to the supply of self-build sites/permissions, its [name] identifies that more needs to be done to meet demand and deliver custom and self-build housing opportunities. The provision of the proposed self-build house would do this and is thus a further benefit which weighs in favour of the appeal proposal, especially as the available evidence indicates that the demand for self-build plots is not being met.

The above aspects align with what various local and national policies seek to achieve, including avoiding isolated homes and delivering a sufficient supply and variety of homes to meet the needs of different groups. Furthermore, whilst the woodland creation cannot be counted as a direct benefit given it is needed to avoid adverse effects on the [name], the planting of trees on agricultural land is likely to provide some additional indirect biodiversity benefits as well as make the footpath less wet and thus more usable.

On the other hand, the proposal would create a dwelling in the defined countryside, contrary to local policy restrictions on such housing, whilst future occupiers would be likely to use the private vehicle for many of their trips, counter to the Framework’s provisions on promoting sustainable transport. Inconsistent with the Framework’s provisions covering well-designed places and the natural environment, there would also be some harm to character and appearance and the NL. However, the latter harm would be limited and localised, whilst the proposed development would not be isolated, instead reading as an infill scheme within a settlement. The site’s proximity to some local services and facilities, including bus stops with good connections to other settlements, combined with the surrounding highway network’s relatively good visibility and, in most cases, its 30mph limit, means that future occupiers would also not be wholly reliant on the private vehicle. The available evidence indicating that residents make use of the bus services and the footpath to access the school supports this. In addition, the environmental harm associated with vehicular trips from one house not far from the various services and facilities of Axminster would not be significant.

Consequently, the harms would be limited and whilst I give full weight to development plan policies covering sustainable transport, character and appearance and the NL, the conflict with locational development plan policies attracts lesser weight given the housing supply situation. Accordingly, the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, including having particular regard to its key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well-designed places. The presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore now applies.

Although the Council has not suggested any conditions at appeal stage, the standard conditions covering reserved matters and plans are necessary to secure details of the outstanding matters prior to the development proceeding. I have therefore imposed these four conditions.

The Council’s Officer Report also refers to the need for some conditions if permission were to be granted. I have considered those against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. A condition securing details of a surface water drainage system serving the proposed development is necessary in the interests of drainage and flood risk. The appellant’s submitted details and comments in relation to drainage and flooding issues do not change the need for this condition.

However, with the updated UU securing provision and maintenance of the foul drainage system, a condition covering this matter is not necessary. With regards to securing the proposed development as a self-build dwelling, the updated UU also does this, pursuant to the Self-Build and [address] Building Act 2015 (as amended). A condition seeking to achieve this is therefore unnecessary and would unlikely be enforceable in any event. In addition, a condition specifically seeking the provision of a hedge between the site and remainder of the field is unnecessary because this is covered by the reserved matter of landscaping. This, and any measures required to protect retained trees, can thus be dealt with at reserved matters stage. The Ecology Appraisal also recommends such a hedge and I have imposed a condition securing compliance with that document in the interests of ecology.

Although the proposed development would conflict with various development plan policies and result in some harm, including to the [name], there is a clear need for housing in the district given the shortfall in supply. The proposal would also provide a self-build home and support the local economy and services, whilst the harm would not be significant. Accordingly, despite the great weight afforded to the conservation of the protected landscape, material considerations outweigh the harm that would arise and indicate that the development proposed should be permitted notwithstanding its conflict with the development plan as a whole. The appeal is therefore allowed.

Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale ("the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan ([name] GSBOLP2, Rev 4).

No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall: i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and, iii) provide, a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The sustainable drainage system shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations in sections 4.0 and 4.1 of the [name] (by [name], dated 9 October 2024). END OF SCHEDULE