Appeal 6003024

The appeal is dismissed.

The application is in outline, with access to be considered at this stage. As such, landscaping, layout, scale and appearance are reserved for future application. I have determined the appeal on this basis. An illustrative layout plan was provided with the application, and an amended version has been submitted during the appeal. An additional plan showing a new footway behind an existing hedgerow, together with additional ecological data, has been provided at appeal stage.

Torridge District Council (the Council) does not object to my considering the new plans and the updated ecological information. Given the relatively small nature of these changes, and that layout is reserved for future consideration, I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by my determining the appeal on these plans and information. I will treat the amended layout plan as being indicative.

The Council’s second reason for refusal referred to the indicative mix of dwelling sizes, and its third reason related to information about the ecological effects of the proposal. However, through the Statement of [name], the Council has confirmed that the amended plans and additional information would overcome its concerns in these respects. I see little reason to take a different view. As a result, I shall not consider these matters or the second and third refusal reasons any further.

The appeal submission included a draft [name] (UU). Amongst other things, this sought to secure planning obligations such as affordable housing, recreational improvements, green infrastructure, and education and healthcare contributions. Sadly, one of the signatories died after signing the draft UU but before it could be executed (dated). With my agreement, a revised UU was submitted after the close of the Hearing. This has been signed by the other landowners. Confirmation of the updated [name] has also been provided. The Council and Devon County Council (the County Council) are satisfied with the legality of this approach, and I see no reason to disagree. I will return to the planning obligations below.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, • the effect of the proposal on heritage assets, • whether the proposal would accord with the spatial strategy of the Development Plan, including in respect of the [name], and • whether any harm in respect of the above matters would be outweighed by other considerations, in particular the benefits of the proposal.

The appeal site is formed of two parcels of land consisting of fields and a community farm on the edge of the town of Northam. On the southern parcel, the proposal seeks to erect up to 39 dwellings on sloping land, adjacent to properties on [address] and [address]. Open space and a play area are also proposed here. A public right of way crosses this land. On a separate parcel of land to the north, adjacent to [address], a new orchard and a water attenuation feature are proposed. Another footpath runs between the northern and southern parts of the site.

The site as a whole lies within the Coastal and [name] of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan (the Local Plan), adopted October 2018. There is no dispute that it forms part of the [name] and estuary part of this zone. On such land, Local Plan policy ST09(7) only supports proposals where, amongst other things, they do not detract from the unspoilt character and appearance of the area.

The site is within the [name] character area of the Joint Landscape Character Assessment for [name] and [name], 2011. Its characteristics include a predominantly pastoral land use, a rolling landscape, and the urban areas of Bideford and Northam. Near to the site are features such as a heliport, holiday parks and caravan sites, although these are screened by vegetation and the landform.

The field proposed for housing is currently in agricultural use, and is largely free of built form. It therefore consists of pastoral countryside which makes a positive contribution to the [name] character area. The proposal, being for up to 39 dwellings, would result in substantial new built development within the site. Together with any access road, gardens, outbuildings and domestic paraphernalia, the housing would have an urbanising effect on the site, intruding into the countryside hereabouts. This would harm its attractive and open appearance and would contrast sharply with its pastoral, rolling character.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) finds that the effects on landscape character would be minor when set against the character area as a whole. [name] 3 defines ‘minor’ as not quite fitting into the landscape character. However, whilst recognising that the site is adjacent to the built-up area of Northam, for the reasons already given, I find that the adverse effects of the proposal would be much greater than this, and at least significantly adverse.

In terms of its visual impact, the LVIA identifies eight viewpoints, from where it assesses the sensitivity of the receptors, the magnitude and significance of the impact of the proposal, and the significance after mitigation. Such mitigation includes landscape boundary treatments, additional vegetation within the site, and the use of regressive external materials.

From longer-distance positions, such as LVIA viewpoints three and four, the proposal would be seen at a distance and in the context of existing development. I therefore concur with the LVIA that the effects of the proposal would be adverse but minor. Viewpoint [address]. From this location, the LVIA finds adverse effects of moderate magnitude, of minor significance. However, given indicative size of the proposal, and the position of the new vehicular access, in my judgement it would be of greater adverse impact when seen from this point.

Moreover, the LVIA acknowledges that the greatest visual impacts would come from locations that include the public rights of way directly affected by the proposal. Despite this, it includes no viewpoints from the footpaths, from where users are likely to be sensitive to change, and adverse visual effects are likely to be high. Consequently, the LVIA underestimates the harmful visual effects of the proposal, which in my view would be at least significantly negative.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would detract from the unspoilt nature of the [name] hereabouts. As such, it would harm the character and appearance of the area, thus conflicting with Local Plan policy ST09(7). It would similarly not accord with Local Plan policies DM08A and ST14 which require development to avoid adverse landscape impacts wherever possible, to protect and enhance local landscape character, and to conserve local distinctiveness. For the same reasons it would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to maintain the character of the undeveloped coast. Accordingly, I give this harm and conflict substantial negative weight in the

The Grade II listed ‘[name] at [name] (the tablet) is located near to the appeal site on [address]. The tablet dates from the 19th century and is said to commemorate the location of the mythical Battle of Cynuit (878) or the Battle of Northam (around 1069). Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that I have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings and their settings, or any features of special architectural or historic interest.

The significance of the tablet is illustrative and as an association with the then-prominent Chappell family. However, its significance is also drawn from the semi-rural setting of the tablet, which aids its appreciation. Despite other development nearby, the proposal would urbanise the area close to the tablet, diminishing its setting and interpretation, and therefore undermining its significance.

Interested parties, including the Battle of Northam Association, refer to historic documentary evidence said to suggest that the appeal site, particularly its northern parcel, is on the fringes of the c1069 battlefield. It is argued that previous investigations may not have been suitable for the type of scattered artefacts which might be found on an ancient battlefield. On this basis, some of the interested parties maintain that the appeal site constitutes a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA).

However, the County Council’s Senior Historic Officer does not support this position. He comments that the investigation of any remains and their recording can be dealt with by planning conditions, including a [name] of Investigation, rather than requiring this before the grant of planning permission. The Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that decision-making regarding such assets requires a proportionate response. Consequently, on the information available to me, I conclude that the site does not constitute a NDHA. That said, this does not change my findings with regard to the tablet.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on a heritage asset. As such, it would conflict with Local Plan policy ST14, which requires protection of the historical dimension of the landscape. It is common ground between the Council and the appellant that the proposal would result in harm which is at the lower end of the ‘less than substantial’ range in the language of the Framework. Even so, I am required by Framework paragraph 212 to give this harm great weight. Framework paragraph 215 requires that this harm should be weighed against public benefits, an exercise that I shall undertake below.

Local Plan policy ST06 sets out the spatial development strategy for [name] main centres, such as Northam. The policy supports appropriate levels of growth within defined boundaries, to meet the needs of Northam and surrounding communities. However, the site lies outside of these boundaries. Policy ST07(4) relates to land in the countryside, and there is no dispute that this includes the appeal site. The policy limits development to that which is enabled to meet local economic and social needs, or requires a countryside location.

The supporting text to policy ST09 makes clear that the undeveloped parts of the coastal zone are a finite resource. It continues that their unspoilt character, appearance and tranquillity will be protected against development not related to the coast or not providing benefits for the local community. The appellant emphasises the advantages to the community of the proposed affordable housing and [name] benefits, which I shall consider below.

Nevertheless, policy ST09 itself does not refer to such community benefits. Instead, it makes clear that development within the [name] and estuary will only be supported where it is required amongst other things because it cannot reasonably be located outside of that area. Whether this is the case is a matter of contention between the parties.

The Council relies on Northam as one of its strategic locations for growth, and it has previously made allocations within the same coastal zone. The appellant has undertaken an Alternative Sites Assessment (ASA) to establish whether there are other sites that could be used for the proposal. It has focused its search on land adjoining the Northam settlement boundary, excluding sites within high-risk flood zones, the National Landscape, and the Green Wedge. The latter is an area designated under Local Plan policy NOR10 to resist development which would contribute to the coalescence of parts of the area.

The Council has criticised the exclusion of the Green Wedge from the area of search, highlighting that the designation does not have the same national support as the undeveloped coast. Even so, given the restrictions imposed by policy NOR10, it seems to me unlikely that the Council would permit development of the indicative scale proposed here within the Green Wedge. I therefore agree with the ASA methodology in this respect.

The ASA undertook a detailed assessment of the sites it identified with potential. It found that only one site scored higher against its suitability criteria than the appeal site, at Land north of Raleigh Hill1. Although it is close to and perhaps better connected with Bideford, I see little reason to exclude it as a possible alternative site. That site is no longer promoted in the most recent Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). Equally however, the ASA has not been updated to reflect, for example, the HELAA site at [address] and [address], Appledore2. That site is within Northam parish and so could provide an alternative to the appeal site for the proposal.

Moreover, I see nothing in the wording of policy ST09(7) that limits alternative locations to those adjoining Northam. Instead, it only refers to sites outside of the [name] and estuary. House prices in Northam are higher than in the District as a whole, and the proposal would provide affordable housing to people with a local connection to Northam. That said, I do not have substantive evidence to show that the need for affordable housing is greater in Northam as opposed to nearby Bideford, and so this does not provide a sufficient reason to limit the area of search to Northam. Consequently, I see little reason why sites further afield could not equally provide reasonable alternatives to the appeal site.

As such, for the reasons given above, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal could not reasonably be located outside of the [name] and estuary, as required by policy ST09(7). I shall consider the social and economic benefits of the proposal below. However, it is not for enabling or other forms of development referred to by policy ST07(4). It therefore does not meet the requirements of this policy.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would not accord with the strategy of the Development Plan, including in respect of the [name] and estuary. Consequently, it would conflict with Local Plan policy ST09 in this respect, as well as policy ST07. It would similarly conflict with the aim of the Framework to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. I give this harm and conflict substantial negative weight in the planning balance. 1 Northam 6 2 HELLA site reference HEA/NOR/0010 However, I find no conflict with Local Plan policy ST06, given that this only relates to sites within the defined development boundaries.

The Local Plan seeks the provision of a minimum of 1,916 new dwellings within Northam, 11% of the District-wide total. The Council argues that it has achieved a surplus against this requirement. Conversely, by extrapolating the 11% proportion to reflect the uplift resulting from the [name], the appellant calculates that Northam would need to provide 2,926 homes. That said, such an exercise does not reflect the environmental constraints of the town, and it cannot be assumed that future allocations of housing for Northam will require the same proportions of housing relative to the District.

In any case, there is no dispute that the Council cannot demonstrate an adequate supply of housing land as required by the Framework, with around 4.6 years of supply. The shortfall is relatively modest and relates to the whole District. Nevertheless, 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. There is no dispute that Framework footnote seven does not apply to the proposal.

I have found conflict with Local Plan policies ST07, ST09, DM08A and ST14, which are broadly consistent with the Framework. Against that, the proposal would add up to 39 units to housing supply, in a location that adjoins a settlement identified as a focus for growth. It would provide up to 11 affordable houses on the site, plus a financial contribution. The Council does not dispute that there is a shortfall of such properties in the District and that insufficient numbers are being provided. I therefore give the housing supply benefits of the proposal, including affordable units, significant positive weight in the planning balance.

The proposal would provide economic benefits during construction and subsequently, as well as social advantages. These include the creation of jobs, and the planning obligations secured through the UU. A new footway along a section of [address] is proposed which would fill a gap on one side of this road. This is supported by the Highway Authority. The proposal would also bring ecological benefits, including a [name] greater than the 10% requirement. Together, I give these matters additional moderate positive weight.

In light of my findings above, it follows that the public benefits of the proposal, and the weight I attribute to them, would be sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the listed tablet, taken as a stand-alone issue. Accordingly, the test of Framework paragraph 215 is met.

Even so, given the harms and benefits identified above, and the weight they attract, 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. As such, there is no need for me to reach a finding regarding the weight attributable to the emerging Northam Neighbourhood Plan and its policies, or to whether Framework paragraph 14 is engaged, as suggested by interested parties. This is because my decision would not turn on these considerations.

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. 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 it. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Council’s Ecology Planning Application Consultation Response

[name] of Register of Title, issued 12 March 2026

[name], dated 16 March 2026