Appeal 6002918

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against South Hams District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

At the outset of the appeal, the appellant has provided a carbon report, drainage strategy and biodiversity metric information that was not before the Council when it made its decision. The new information would not involve alterations or make a substantial difference to the scheme. Furthermore, all interested parties have had an opportunity to comment on this information. Therefore, in accepting the information, I am satisfied it would not cause unlawful procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal.

The Council’s fourth reason for refusal related to the lack of a submitted [name] metric. Given that further information in this regard has now been provided, the Council no longer wishes to contest this reason for refusal.

The mains issues in this case therefore are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the Heritage Coast and whether the development would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the South Devon National Landscape; • whether the proposal provides a suitable housing mix with regards to the local development strategy; and • whether the proposal would make appropriate provision for carbon reduction.

The appeal property sits proudly above the settlement of [site address] facing the sea in a prominent position at the end of a row of dwellings stretching and rising out of the settlement. The detached two storey dwelling sits adjacent to and is highly visible from the coastal path, including ‘bolt trail’ to the south, both of which offer panoramic views towards the bay and [site address] .

The character of the surrounding area is of a small settlement generally comprising mid to large properties of mixed age and appearance in generous plots, surrounded by open countryside and coastline. The appeal site is typical of this character, and is a sizeable, sloping plot, however the immediate neighbours to the side and rear are single storey dwellings, giving the property an increased visual prominence.

The site lies within the within the South Devon National Landscape (SDLN) and the South Devon Heritage Coast policy area. It borders the ‘[name]. Both the Heritage Coast and [name] are described within Policy DEV24 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (2014-2024) (JLP) as having an undeveloped and unspoilt character, appearance and tranquillity.

The South Devon AONB Management Plan (AONBMP) includes ‘fine, undeveloped, wild and rugged coastline’, and ‘iconic wide, unspoilt and expansive panoramic views’ in the list of special qualities. The character of the appeal site and its surroundings reflect these qualities, and as such contribute positively to the scenic beauty of the national landscape.

The existing property is a two storey rendered and gabled dwelling, with flat roofed extensions and a single attached garage and outbuildings to the rear. The submitted design and access statement1 sets out that it was built between 1925 and 1938.

The replacement dwelling would be significantly larger than the existing property, with the floorspace being more than tripled. A portion of this additional space and massing is visually mitigated by the building stepping with the topography of the site, with elements positioned below ground. Nevertheless, the dwelling would be incongruously substantial compared to the immediately surrounding single dwellings.

The width of the dwelling facing the coastal path is substantially increased. The additional massing of the dwelling, at first floor and particularly at ridge height on this western elevation is therefore pronounced. The additional bulk on the coast facing elevation, which, albeit in a modest way, would extend northwards towards the undeveloped surrounding landscape, would therefore encroach into existing views of the countryside.

Additionally, the northern side elevation would also be significantly increased in scale, with built form and additional massing at first floor projecting towards the rear of the site. The additional scale of the building compared to its immediate neighbours would therefore be striking, particularly given the existing low lying 1 [name] single storey development to the rear. This additional massing, combined with the extended frontage, would intrude into the adjacent coastal landscape setting.

This visual impact would be exacerbated by the extensive additional fenestration. The images provided in page 8 of the submitted lighting impact assessment2 document illustrate the frontage, which would be the most noticeable and prominent elevation.

A contemporary, art deco inspired design would not be out of keeping in the mixed surrounding context in of itself, and the materials proposed, such as render, and local stone to the lower elements of the building would be in keeping with the local palette. However, the additional width on the frontage would contain further windows at first floor level, in addition to introducing second floor windows. Even if reduced from previous schemes and designed to minimise reflection and light spill, the added glazing areas are designed to, as stated at the Hearing, ‘maximise views’. These would result in a marked increase in visible glazing compared to the traditionally domestic size windows of the existing property.

The lighting impact assessment concludes that the development would ‘not have any adverse lighting impacts as assessed against industry standards’ within National Landscapes, however, this does not take into account the sensitive and prominent position and context of the dwelling. Moreover, these conclusions are based upon mitigating matters such as internal energy efficient lighting schemes, which, as agreed by the appellant at the Hearing, would be difficult to secure.

Whilst the existing property has external lighting, the significant increase in high level glazing would therefore cause additional light spill on the frontage. The perception of light spillage during darker hours would be increased far in excess of the immediately surrounding dwellings. This would encroach into the dark and tranquil surrounding countryside, and erode the rural edge of the settlement.

The submitted [name] Assessment3 concludes that the landscape strategy and ecological measures, including a maintenance and management strategy, would ensure that the effect of change resulting from the development can be accommodated by the landscape. However, this would not entirely mitigate for the scale of the dwelling and harm identified arising from the additional massing and light effect.

Similarly, whilst the replacement of the existing poor-quality boundary walls with local stone and hedging would provide an enhancement, this would also not lessen the visual impact of the upper floors of the building.

Whilst very long distance glimpses may be possible from elsewhere, I observed that the only designated [name] View4, that the site is particularly visible from is Nos 3 and 7. These are distance views with the dwelling on the horizon, and the additional massing of the frontage from this distance would not be obvious, and the intrusion into these views would not be materially harmful.

Nevertheless, as the last dwelling on the very edge of the settlement at its frontage, the appeal site is particularly sensitive to increased built form and massing to passers-by traversing the [name]. The scale of the 2 by Vida design December 2025 3 March 2025 4 as detailed in Policy SH ENV5 of the Neighbourhood Plan building would be conspicuous as would its effect in extending built form into the surrounding landscape and encroaching into existing views of the countryside.

Whilst it may be an ambition of the appellant to create a statement building, the AONBMP indicates that the cumulative impact of small changes is being felt at a landscape scale across the area.

The visual impact of the dwelling and its consequential effect on the landscape would detract from the character and appearance of the area, including the Heritage Coast and harm the landscape and scenic beauty of the SDNL. The proposal therefore conflicts with [name] DEV23, DEV24 and DEV25 and [name] ENV2, SH ENV5 and SH HBE3 of the South Huish Neighbourhood Development Plan 2019-2034 (2020), which collectively seek, among other things, to have proper regard to the context in terms of local distinctiveness, sense of place, visual impact, scale and massing.

JLP Policy SPT2.4 requires development to create neighbourhoods and communities which have a good balance of housing types. JLP Policy DEV8 seeks to ensure proposals meet local housing need and ensure that there is a range of housing appropriate to the area. In order to ascertain this, the policy refers to local housing evidence.

The housing data that is before me from the 2021 Census indicates that there is an oversupply of larger properties (four or more bedrooms) within the district, and even more so within the local parish. The policy does not define a large property in any other way.

The existing property is a 4 bed unit, falling within the four or more bedroom category. The proposed replacement dwelling would also fall within this category. Whilst larger therefore, the appeal proposal would not result in the provision of additional detached or four bedroom properties and would not consequently materially alter nor exacerbate the balance of the existing housing stock.

Whilst the development would not redress the imbalance within the housing stock, LP Policy DEV8 refers to this in relation to the ‘most particular needs in the policy’. It does not say that any replacement of a ‘large’ dwelling should be with a smaller dwelling that falls within a different category.

Moreover, the replacement dwelling would provide a clear betterment over the existing dwelling in terms of the existing poor access for ambulant/disabled, from outside and within the ground/first floors due to split levels, narrow doorways and raised thresholds. This would meet the identified particular need within the policy for housing suitable for households with a specific need or dwellings suitable for old people who wish to retain a sense of self-sufficiency.

There is no mention in either policy of occupancy rating and, in any event, there is no mechanism before me to control this. As such, whilst this may influence data relating to housing size priorities, of itself, any potential ‘under-occupancy’ is not a determinative matter in this regard.

The proposal would not materially alter the balance of the existing housing stock and so would provide a suitable balance and range of housing type.

As such, it would not conflict with the aims of [name] DEV8 and SPT2.4, which seek to deliver a wide choice and good balance of high quality homes.

JLP Policy SPT1 is a high level policy concerned with the delivery of sustainable development, including a requirement for environmentally conscious business development and the promotion of a low carbon economy.

At a more detailed level, JLP DEV32 seeks to ensure that delivering a low carbon future for the plan area should form part of the design and implementation of all development. This is in support of a plan area target to halve 2005 levels of carbon emissions by 2034 as well as increase the use and production of decentralised energy.

The policy requires developments to ‘identify opportunities to minimise the use of natural resources in the development over its lifetime, such as water, minerals and consumable products, by reuse or recycling of materials in construction, and by making the best use of existing buildings and infrastructure’.

The submitted design & access statement sets out the constraints of the site and existing building in terms of design, the age and weaknesses of the foundations and unsuitability of the ground floor levels and design for ambulant/disabled access. There is little compelling evidence before me to contradict this. As such, it is demonstrated that are significant impracticalities in relation to retaining and extending the existing structure.

Measures to ensure that opportunities to reduce and minimise the use of carbon resources are identified. These include passive solar gain, the recycling of materials such as the roof tiles and roof timbers, the significant improvement predicted above building regulation standards in respect to thermal efficiency standards, SUDS features, green roofs and renewable technologies including air source heat pumps. These measures also meet the policy requirement that developments should be considered in relation to the ‘energy hierarchy’.

As accepted by the Council at the Hearing, neither the policy nor its supporting text makes any reference to the scale of dwelling or the rooms within the dwelling. As such, these matters are not determinative in consideration of the policy requirements above.

The Council refers to its adopted Climate Emergency Planning Statement (CEPS) as being of key relevance. As established at the Hearing, the CEPS is not part of the statutory development plan. However, it has been subject to a public consultation exercise and corresponds with the climate change and carbon reduction objectives of the LP. It is therefore a material consideration to which I afford modest weight.

M5 of the CEPS seeks to offset the net overall carbon cost of the project within 25 years through carbon savings achieved by operational use of the replacement dwelling. The wording of M5 clarifies that the baseline for the assessment will be the target emissions rate as derived from building regulations part [name] also requires that embodied carbon calculations for the existing and proposed buildings are submitted using software that complies with RICS whole life carbon assessment principles.

The submitted [name] Calculation5 document provides carbon calculations for the existing and proposed buildings. It clarifies that its calculations were conducted using software in accordance with RICS guidance. It concludes that the development would comfortably exceed the requirements of building regulations, and when considering the initial 25 years of the project, the net overall carbon cost of the proposed development would be offset through the savings in the operational carbon of the proposed design.

Whilst the Council raise issue with matters such as the embodied carbon of the existing dwelling, and whether emissions from carbon sequestration should be included, it does not dispute that these specifics are not referred to in the wording of M5, rather it being inferred through the principles behind the document. As such, there is no substantive evidence before me that there is any clear conflict with the wording of M5. This is in accordance with the example appeal decisions6 provided by the Council, where the Inspectors did not refer to anything other than the wording within M5.

The information before me shows that careful consideration has been paid to a low carbon future, in accordance with the principles of CEPS, and that opportunities have been identified to minimise the use of natural resources in the development.

Therefore, I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would meet the required carbon reduction requirements of the development plan. As such, the development would accord with the sustainable development goals of [name] SPT1 and DEV32.

The holiday let element of the proposal would result in an improved accommodation offer for tourism purposes. The intention of the development is to provide a higher end level of accommodation suitable for year round visits, suggested at the Hearing for at least 10 months of the year, rather than being constrained to a limited seasonal market. It is stated that this in turn will increase the number of those employed to cater for the property, increase spend within the local economy, and support year-round visitor activity. There is little substantive evidence provided to support this however, and the additional benefit is not qualified nor detailed.

Nevertheless, supporting the local economy including tourism, is supported by the Neighbourhood Plan, in addition to [name] SPT1, DEV15 and DEV25. However, notwithstanding the conflict with other elements/criteria of these same [name] that seek to protect landscapes, given the scale of the development with regards to the wider local economy, the weight given to this economic benefit is modest.

The submitted statement on bat potential7 sets out that there has been no recorded evidence of bat roosting or emergence activity on site and that the site is 5 By Building Efficiency, Jan 2025 6 Appeal references APP/Q1153/W/24/3350956, APP/Q1153/W/23/3330619 & APP/Q1153/W/24/3338983 7 [name], November 2025 ‘highly unlikely’ that the ecological situation will significantly change. From the submitted evidence, I am satisfied therefore with the Council’s conclusion that the site is not likely to be used by bats. There is no conflict therefore with the protection of protected species requirements of the Habitats Regulations and Framework.

The Design and [name] sets out that the development as ‘could be considered part self-build’. The Framework supports small sites coming forward for self-build and custom-build housing. However, notwithstanding that there is no evidence before me that the Council is failing in its statutory duty to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding, no mechanism is before me to secure the development. As such, I cannot give this matter any wight in favour of the proposal.

The proposal is acceptable in terms of its effects on the housing mix and in terms of its carbon emissions reduction. However, the distinctive character of the SDNL would not be conserved and enhanced, and the relevant development plan policies are consistent with the Framework in this respect. For this reason, and in view of the great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in the SDNL, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.

Therefore, for the reasons set out, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed .