Appeal 6002522

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the Councils description of the development contained on the decision notice as the description provided on the application form is too long and contains matters that are not descriptions of development.

The appellant submitted amended plans with the appeal which include an amended site layout and changes to plot 11. The Council had the opportunity to comment on the amended plans which have not resulted in any significant changes to the proposed scheme. Accordingly, I am satisfied that no one would be prejudiced were my decision to have had regard to the amended plans.

The main issues are:  whether the proposed development would be appropriately located having regard to the Councils development plan policies,  the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area including whether it would conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the North Devon Coast National Landscape,  whether the proposed development would provide safe and suitable access for pedestrians to access local services, 1 Proposed Site Plan Revision: P07 Proposed Site Elevations Revision: P07 Block 01 – [name]: P03 Plots 01 – [name]: P03 Plots 01 – [name]: P03  the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] with regard to privacy, sunlight and outlook, and  whether the proposed development would provide an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes.

The appeal site is located outside of any defined settlement boundary and is therefore designated as open countryside. Policy ST07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 [name] 2018 (LP) outlines that in the countryside, development will be limited to that which is enabled to meet local economic and social needs, rural building reuse and development which is necessarily restricted to a countryside location. The proposed development would not meet any of these requirements.

Policy HAR of the LP sets out the spatial strategy for Hartland which outlines that there is a preference for growth on the east side of the village, however, goes on to state that this would be provided through, amongst other things, 104 dwellings which will be delivered through extant planning consents and an allocated site. The proposed development would therefore not meet the spatial strategy outlined for Hartland that is outlined through Policy HAR of the LP.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not be appropriately located. It would therefore be contrary to Policies ST07 and HAR of the LP which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that developments meet local economic and social needs, rural building reuse and development which is necessarily restricted to a countryside location.

The appeal site is a large parcel of land which is grassed and slopes upwards away from the road. The proposed development would be located adjacent to the road which is bordered by dense hedgerow and vegetation. It is clear from passing the appeal site that it is open and undeveloped, and it is also located at the edge of any built form with the wider area being categorised by expansive and undeveloped fields which the appeal site contributes to. The appeal site therefore has an open and verdant character and appearance.

The appeal site is located within the North Devon Coast National Landscape (the National Landscape). Paragraph 187 of the Framework seeks to ensure that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. Paragraph 189 requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes.

The North Devon and Torridge Landscape Character Assessment Update [name] and Torridge District Councils Final Report May 2023 identifies the appeal site as being located within the open coastal plateau landscape character type. The key features of which are identified as an open, undulating landscape with broad ridgelines which the appeal sites open and sloping appearance makes a positive contribution to.

The proposed development would occupy an undeveloped parcel of land and while there is significant screening, the proposed dwellings would still be visible due to their overall size and position within the appeal site. The proposed development would also erode the spacious gap that currently exists between the edge of Hartland and Eastdown Park and is a positive feature that separates these areas. As such, the proposed development would be harmful to the open and verdant character and appearance of the area through the erosion of this gap.

I acknowledge that the site is well screened and that further screening is proposed, meaning that some closer views would likely be limited to passing and glimpsed views. However, even such limited views would be obvious in the distinctly expansive and open character and appearance of the area and would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape.

I am also mindful of the longer-range views, particularly viewpoints 9, 10, 11 and 13 which are identified within the LVIA Landscape Visual Impact Assessment [name] P1 rev. 02. These clearly illustrate where built form currently ends within Hartland and that the appeal site contributes to the expansive and undeveloped fields, any built form within this space would be noticeable and would erode the open and verdant character and appearance of the area. I note the landscaping proposed, however, I am not convinced that the appeal site and surrounding vegetation requires restoration as it currently sits well within the landscape. In any case, such landscaping is unlikely to reduce the prominence of the proposed development from such longer-range views.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape. It would be contrary to Policies ST09, DM08A and ST14 of the LP and Paragraph 187 of the Framework. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development should be of an appropriate scale, mass and design that recognises and respects landscape character of both designated and undesignated landscapes and seascapes.

The Council have alleged conflict with Policy ST07 of the LP, however, this is a spatial strategy that does not relate to the Councils reason for refusal concerning character and appearance.

Policy ST10 of the LP seeks to ensure quality strategic recreational routes and local pedestrian, cycle and bridleway networks. Policy DM05 provides further guidance that seeks to ensure that well-integrated pedestrian and cycle routes and facilities are provided.

The appeal site is located next to a footway that provides access towards Hartland, where there are a number of services and facilities. However, there is a section of road that narrows which means that there is no footway for this section of road and as a result, it is likely that most pedestrians would not be able to access services and facilities by walking.

However, there is a bus stop near to the appeal site that can be accessed by the footway which is also a lit route. The evidence before me indicates that the bus is regular and would provide access to the services and facilities in Hartland or further afield. Furthermore, the close distance as well as generally low speed and straight roads would mean that future occupiers would be able to cycle to services and facilities.

Notwithstanding that future occupiers would be unlikely to be able to access services and facilities by foot, I am mindful of Paragraph 110 of the Framework that states facilities vary between urban and rural areas. In this regard, there are genuine options for alternative travel to the private car through cycling and using the bus.

I am mindful that planning permission2 has been granted which would include the construction of a footway which would reduce the length of road where no footway is present. [name] acknowledge that this work has not taken place yet and there is no guarantee the scheme will be constructed, it would still require future occupiers to walk a section of road with no footway and as such, this is unlikely to improve the attractiveness of walking.

Notwithstanding my findings on future occupiers walking to access services, having regard to the choice of travelling by bike or bus I therefore conclude that the proposed development would provide safe and suitable access and would not conflict with Policies ST10, DM05 and DM06 of the LP and Paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development reduces the need to travel by car and enables alternative sustainable travel options and consider the needs and accessibility of all highway users including cyclists and pedestrians.

Plot [address] to the site boundary and No [address] (No 3), however, changes have been made to the proposal which include the overall reduction in height and size of plot 1 as well as a change in position which is now further away from the boundary.

As a result of the changes, plot 1 is now located an increased distance away from No 3 which combined with the reduction in height from two storeys to one storey would mean that there would be no harm caused to privacy, sunlight or outlook.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 3 with regard to privacy, sunlight and outlook. There would be no conflict with Policies ST04 and DM04 of the LP and Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that the amenities of existing and future neighbouring occupiers are safeguarded.

Policy ST17 of the LP seeks to ensure that dwelling numbers, type, size and tenure, provided through development proposals should reflect identified local housing needs as well as taking into consideration the site character and context and development viability. 2 Council Reference: 1/0782/2021/OUTM

The Council’s Housing and Economic Needs Assessment identifies that the long-term demographic of Torridge will require a mix of dwelling sizes which equates to a greater percentage of two- and three-bedroom dwellings. The proposal as submitted was mostly 4 bedrooms plus dwellings, however, this has been altered and there is now a 2-bedroom bungalow included.

The small scale of the proposal means that it is not possible to fully accord with the identified percentages of dwelling sizes, however, taking account of the amended plans the proposed development would provide a mix of dwellings suitable to meet the future needs of Torridge.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would provide an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes. There would be no conflict with Policy ST17 of the LP which seeks to provide a mix of dwellings provided through development proposals should reflect identified local housing needs.

The appellant has referred to another development in an attempt to justify the proposed development. I do not have the full details in respect of such example so I cannot be sure of the circumstances. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

In regard to Teaky Park3, I have been provided with very little information about this application, however it appears to relate to a single dwelling on a large parcel of land to the rear of the appeal site. However, as the application referred to was only for a single dwelling and also a permission in principle whereby location, land use, and amount of development are the only considerations it differs from the proposed development before me.

The appeal proposal would not be appropriately located and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and National Landscape. The magnitude of these harms would be significant.

The proposed development would conflict with Policies ST07, HAR, ST09, DM08A and ST14 of the LP which are consistent with the Framework in seeking to ensure developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting and that developments conserve and enhance landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. Therefore, the conflict between the proposal and LP should be given significant weight in this appeal.

As there are no policies in the LP which positively favour development of this kind in this location and as the proposal would be contrary to the policies referred to above, there would be conflict with the development plan as a whole. 3 Council Reference: 1/0671/2025/PIP

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. With a supply of 4.61 years, the shortfall is judged to be moderate in this instance. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework states that where the policies which are most important for determining the proposal are out-of-date (including situations where the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a necessary housing land supply) permission should be granted unless (i) the application of policies in the Framework provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed or (ii) the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

[name] have identified harm to the National Landscape, the harm is limited through the proposals scale and while I attribute great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, it would not provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development. Paragraph 11d(i) of the Framework therefore does not apply.

The benefits associated with five additional dwellings would be relatively minor even taking account of the objective of boosting significantly the supply of housing in the Framework and the Council’s housing land supply position. There would be some modest economic benefits through the construction of the dwellings combined with future occupiers spending as well as environmental benefit through achieving [name].

Consequently, the adverse impacts of the proposal’s location, as well as the harm to the character and appearance of the area and National Landscape would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.