Appeal 6003514

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by A F Freemantle & Son against East Devon District Council. This application is subject to a separate decision.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage, permission in principle, establishes whether a site is suitable in principle, and the second technical details consent (“TDC”) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the consideration of permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of the development permitted 1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if permission in principle is granted. Consequently, all detailed drawings provided with the application are considered indicative and I have determined the appeal accordingly.

An applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum net number as part of the application. In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for up to 9no. dwellings on the appeal site.

The emerging East Devon Local Plan has now completed the second Regulation 19 consultation stage, and the Council expects to make a submission in Spring

Insofar as the plan has not yet entered examination I consider it is still at an early stage and therefore little weight can be given to the policies contained therein. The [site address] and Sowton ([name]) Neighbourhood Plan (“the 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] NP”) was made November 2025, and the NP now forms part of the development plan, and I have therefore taken it into account when considering this appeal.

The appellant has made reference to an approved permission in principle2 and dismissed appeal3. Whilst some aspects, of both of these examples maybe similar in nature to those of this proposal, I have considered this appeal on its own merits and particular facts. Another appeal has been identified as Appendix A4 but no documentation was submitted, consequently this has been noted but does not materially contribute to the consideration of this appeal.

The main issues are whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to the location, the proposed land use, and the amount of the development, with particular regard to the development strategy for the area and access to services and facilities and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan (2013 to 2031) (“the EDLP”) adopted January 2016 directs that Policy BisC11 of the NP defines the settlement boundary. The site lies beyond that boundary, in land that for planning purposes is in the countryside.

Policies BisC04 and BisC11 of the NP seeks to limit development outside of [site address] settlement boundary but does support development proposals where they are necessary for the purposes of agriculture, informal outdoor recreation, or farm diversification without harming the countryside. The appeal proposal is not for such an exception and in this instance, I consider that the proposed development does not conform with the development strategy for the location of new housing as outlined above.

The appeal site is a triangular parcel of land bound by the A3052, [site address] and a highway maintainable at public expense (“HMPE”) currently a narrow and paved path, and a no through road. The land is an area of pasture with boundaries formed by post and rail fencing, mature hedgerows and a number of mature trees. There is an existing vehicular access off [site address] , and a pedestrian / cycle access is proposed to the HMPE.

The Council acknowledges that the site lies adjacent to a main route and benefits from access to alternative forms of transportation that would reduce reliance on private motor vehicles, in this instance bus stops either side of the A3052, and less than 200 metres distant from the site. The appellant has also provided in the Statement of Case a comprehensive breakdown of distances, all less than 1 kilometre, to a variety of services and facilities nearby. 2 Ref: 25/1487/PIP 3 Ref: APP/U1105/W/24/3347347 4 Ref: APP/A1530/W/20/3250629

On the day of my visit I walked to the nearest bus stop and in my view the HMPE was adequate for the use of pedestrians and wheelers given the surfacing and width of the path, together with lighting afforded by the A3052. The bus stops are located either side of the A3052 which connects Exeter to Sidmouth and further afield. Consequently, I consider that the location of the appeal site appears to afford satisfactory public transport options that would provide access to a wide range of employment, retail, facilities and services.

It would be possible to walk along the footway to access the modest range of services in [site address] , including the public house, and school, with the garden centre nearby. Cycling, for some, to a range of services, facilities and employment sites would also be possible. The location of the proposed housing is therefore compliant with Strategy 5B and Policy TC2 of the EDLP which seeks development proposals that contributes to the objectives of promoting and securing sustainable modes of travel and transport and located so as to be accessible by pedestrians, cyclists and public transport so as to minimise the need to travel by car.

Whilst the site lies outside of a defined settlement boundary, I noted several residential properties and businesses nearby. Regarding the residential properties, these tend to be set back from the A3052, and in common with the industrial areas are largely screened from views by virtue of dense and mature hedgerows and stands of trees. Generally, the surrounding area consists of fields under cultivation or as pasture, which make a valuable contribution to the rural character along this road. Consequently, I consider that the site is located in a predominantly rural area where it does not have the character or appearance of being part of the village which lies and is separated to the west.

The Council has identified that the site falls within the [name] and [name] and argues that the proposal would erode the character and appearance of the countryside. The development of this site would, given the prominent roadside location, result in a built form of a density and scale greater than that of the existing residential properties in the area. The indicative layout plan, whilst only one option for the layout, reinforces my view that the development of the site with up to 9 units, however arranged, would be an overdevelopment that would appear as an incongruous intrusion in this location.

Consequently, the proposal would be an unduly and harmful intensification of residential use in an otherwise generally sparsely developed rural location. This pasture contributes to the character and appearance of the area and the harm resulting from the development could not be overcome through design details at the TDC stage. Therefore, the development of the site would be contrary to Strategy 7 and Policy D1 of the EDLP that seeks design in the countryside that is of a scale and density that relates to land form and patterns of settlement and, as set out earlier, does not represent a land use exception as set out in Policy BisC04 of the NP where the proposal would be necessary for the purposes of agriculture, informal outdoor recreation, or farm diversification without harming the countryside.

I have found that the proposal to build up to 9no. open market dwellings would conflict with the settlement strategy and would harm the character and appearance of the area. While the site may be in a location that would provide occupants with sustainable transport options, given the harm I have found. I consider that the scheme would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole.

The Council acknowledges that they cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Council has provided an update regarding the housing land supply for [name], which has been seen by the appellant, stating that rather than the 2.97 years, identified at the time of refusal, the current supply stands at 3.5 years. Regardless of the precise figure the deficit is significant.

Consequently, as the Council cannot demonstrate a Framework compliant supply of housing land, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11 (d) ii of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) is engaged. This sets out 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.

In terms of the benefits of the scheme, I consider that, there being an overall housing shortfall in [name], the provision of 9no. open market dwellings in this location would make a worthwhile but modest contribution to meeting the wider District need. The units would be provided in a sustainable location. Additionally, there would be economic benefits arising during the construction of the development, although such benefits would be short term. Some long-term benefits in the form of support of local services and facilities would arise from future residents.

In this regard, having regard to the issues that paragraph 11 requires that particular regard shall be had to, whilst the proposal site may be in a sustainable location, it does not make effective use of land nor, would it secure a well-designed place because of the landscape harm, and there would be no provision of affordable homes. Overall, I consider the cumulative benefits should be attributed limited to moderate weight to these benefits, given the number of dwellings proposed and the level of housing supply shortfall, even if the figure of 2.97 years was still considered applicable.

On the other hand, in terms of the harms, it is also necessary to consider the requirements of paragraph 14 a) and b) of the Framework in decisions relating to the provision of housing, with emphasis on the status of the NP, in this instance less than five year since being made. The NP contains policies and allocations to meet the identified housing requirement for [site address] at that time. These are set out in Policy BisC12 of the NP and identifies that an allocated site is located within the settlement boundary.

While the housing land supply position may have changed since the NP was formulated, it nevertheless sought to allocate land to meet the housing supply requirements of the neighbourhood plan area. Consequently, and notwithstanding the overall shortfall of housing land supply for the wider district, given the newness of the NP, paragraph 14 of the Framework is engaged and I consider a matter of importance to the considerations in this appeal. I therefore attach significant weight to the harm resulting from the location of the proposed housing beyond the settlement boundary of the NP. I attach substantial weight to the harm resulting to the character and appearance of the area. In this respect there would be corresponding conflict with the Framework requirements that proposals are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.

It follows that I conclude that adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework when considered as a whole. The scheme would therefore not be sustainable development within the meaning of the Framework.

The scheme would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole and material consideration do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.