Appeal 6003751

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for unrestricted use as a dwellinghouse at [site address] Annexe, [site address] , Lympstone, Devon [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1588/FUL, subject to the following conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 25-001-01-SLP Site Location Plan; 25-001-10 [name]; 25-001-11 [name]; 25-001-12-PBP Proposed Block Plan.

The use as an unrestricted dwellinghouse shall not commence until a scheme of landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building as an unrestricted dwellinghouse and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the first occupation of the building as an unrestricted dwellinghouse die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Within three months of the date of this permission, details of provision for a secure bicycle parking space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The secure bicycle parking space shall be completed in accordance with the approved details within six months of the approval in writing of the details and shall be permanently retained thereafter for the parking of bicycles.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the proposed changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issues are • Whether the site is in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies concerning housing in the countryside, and • The effect of the development on the East Pebblebed Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA).

The site lies outside any Built-up Area Boundary and, applying Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan 2016 (EDLP), is within the countryside for the purposes of development plan policy. Strategy 7 identifies the circumstances in which development in the countryside may be permitted.

The annexe is a detached two storey building physically separate from the host dwelling, [site address] , by a parking area and fencing. The annexe is served by its own gravelled driveway leading to a shared drive to [site address] . I saw on my visit that the annexe contains its own kitchen, bathroom and bedrooms and its immediate setting is domestic in character comprising the driveway, parking area, lawns, sheds, garden furniture and other garden paraphernalia. Combined with its physical detachment this means that the site already has the character and appearance of a separate, detached dwelling.

Although the use of the annexe is subject to a planning condition stating that it should be used for single family purposes as part of the main residential use of [site address] , its design, facilities and detached position means that its occupants need not rely on the host dwelling for day to day living requirements.

Policy D8 of the EDLP sets out the requirements for the re-use or conversion of buildings in the countryside. In this instance, the building is already in residential use albeit as an annexe. The proposed change to unrestricted residential occupation would not result in any external alterations to the building and would not harm its rural setting or character. It would be a re-use of the building for unrestricted occupation.

Whilst the scheme does not include proposals to enhance the setting of the building, the conversion of the building to residential use took place some years ago and it already has an established, pleasant landscape setting. Nevertheless, I see no sound reason why this setting could not be enhanced by further landscaping secured by a planning condition as suggested by the appellant if the appeal were to be allowed.

Policy D8 requires that for residential proposals, it must be established that the development is located close to a range of accessible services and facilities to meet the everyday needs of residents. Whilst there is the occasional building in the vicinity of the site, including the neighbouring [site address] , the site is physically separate from Lympstone, Woodbury or Exmouth and the distance between it and those and other settlements means the site is isolated from them.

[site address] is a narrow country lane. Whilst it may be possible to cycle to the nearest settlements, the distances involved together with the absence of footways and lighting means that access by pedestrians would not be safe or convenient for all users. This together with the absence of public transport means that the future occupants would be reliant on the private car to access services and facilities.

The effect of this, however, should be balanced against the nature of the existing use of the building. The existing planning condition restricting the occupancy of the building does not prevent occupants of the annexe from making their own independent car journeys. [name] am mindful that the nature of the occupancy of the annexe may change when the current occupants move out, I have not been provided with any compelling evidence that the occupants of the annexe share car journeys with the occupants of the host dwelling. Indeed, the appellant’s evidence indicates that the occupants have used two cars for more than 15 years. In my judgement, given the separate nature of the accommodation, some degree of car travel by future occupants of the annexe would be likely to continue in the future.

The explanatory text to EDLP policy TC2 recognises that vehicular access will be an essential requirement for most developments, especially in rural areas. Therefore, taking into account the existing situation, I conclude that it is unlikely that the unrestricted use of the dwelling would result in a significant increase in the use of the private car. As a result the proposal would cause limited harm to the objectives of promoting and securing sustainable modes of travel and transport set out in [name] 5B and policy TC2 and supported by the locational criteria in policy D8.

Nevertheless, the reliance on the private car means that the proposal is not in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies concerning new housing in the countryside. The limited harm caused results in conflict with [name] 7 and 5B and policies D8 and TC2 regarding sustainable transport and the accessibility of new development and Strategy 3 in so far as it seeks to minimise fossil fuel use.

The site is close to the [name] and the [name]. Regulation 63(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitat Regulations) requires me to make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the proposal for the conservation objectives of the SPA and SAC.

The qualifying features of the SAC are the [name] wet heaths, the European dry heaths, and the population of southern damselfly. For the SPA, the qualifying features are the populations of avocet, black-tailed godwit, dark-bellied brent goose, dunlin, grey plover, oystercatcher, Slavonian grebe, and waterbird assemblage.

The proximity of the appeal site to the SPA and SAC means that future occupants of the proposed unrestricted dwelling could contribute to disturbance of these protected areas through recreational activities. Whilst this needs to be balanced against the existing residential use of the annexe, the potential for adverse effects is likely to increase with the amount of residential development in the area meaning that the combined effects could be significant and effect the integrity of the SPA and SAC. I have therefore carried out an appropriate assessment.

The Mitigation Strategy establishes a joint approach with adjoining Councils towards the mitigation of likely significant effects on the SPA and SAC arising from the cumulative effect of residential schemes. A financial contribution is sought for each new dwelling which is then used to deliver mitigation for the recreational impacts on the protected sites. For this appeal, the appellants provided a signed undertaking under S111 of the Local Government Act 1972. A contribution of £367.62 has been paid to the Council under this agreement towards mitigation of the effects of the proposal on the internationally protected sites.

The Mitigation Strategy indicates that the contributions are used to fund mitigation works, management resources and Suitable Alternative Natural Green Spaces (SANGS). These are managed across three local authority areas to protect internationally important nature reserves including the SPA and SAC.

I have consulted Natural England which has confirmed that the mechanism for securing the mitigation through the S111 undertaking and the contribution which has been secured is sufficient to avoid adverse impacts on the protected sites. As the payment has already been secured through the undertaking under S111, I am satisfied that likely significant effects on the integrity of the SPA and SAC would be avoided.

For these reasons, the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the SPA and SAC. It would therefore comply with the Habitat Regulations and with [name] 47 which seeks to protect internationally designated sites.

The Council indicates that the site lies within the countryside in the emerging East Devon Local Plan. Whilst the draft plan is progressing, it has not yet been adopted and therefore carries limited weight in this appeal which I have determined on the basis of the adopted EDLP.

Reference has been made to other appeals in Shute1 and Combe Raleigh2 where the Inspectors concluded that there was conflict between EDLP policy D8 and the Framework in relation to the locational requirements in policy D8. I return to this in my planning balance below. However, I am not aware of the full planning context of these appeals or the appeal scheme at Rawridge3 and am not familiar with their locations. I have determined this appeal on its individual merits. 1 APP/U1105/W/22/3294599 and APP/U1105/W/22/3294600 2 APP/U1105/W/23/3333745 3 APP/U1105/W/19/3234774

[name] have not found conflict with [name] 47, the conflict with [name] 7 and 5B, policies D8 and TC2 and Strategy 3 results in conflict with the development plan when read as a whole.

The Council can only demonstrate 2.97 years supply of deliverable housing sites which is well below the minimum level required. The policies most important for determining the appeal identified above are therefore out of date for the purposes of the Framework. Consequently, with reference to paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, consideration of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is required.

Paragraph 232 of the Framework states that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The Framework recognises the re-use of redundant or disused isolated buildings in the countryside where the development would enhance its immediate setting. Whilst the building might shortly become vacant, it is not currently redundant or disused. The proposed use as an unrestricted dwelling would however be a re-use of the building which would be consistent with the Framework’s policy to make effective use of land and buildings to meet identified needs for housing.

The Framework’s policy for the re-use of isolated buildings in the countryside does not require those buildings to be located close to services and facilities. Policy D8 is not consistent with the Framework in this respect and is therefore out of date. As a consequence the conflict with policy D8 carries limited weight in this appeal.

Whilst the Framework requires that developments promote sustainable transport and that sustainable transport modes are prioritised, it also recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. As a consequence, although [name] 3 and 5B and policy TC2 are broadly consistent with the Framework the conflict with them should be given moderate weight.

The Framework sets out the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and highlights that small sites such as this can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement in the area. Therefore, taking into account the significant shortfall in the Council’s supply of deliverable housing sites, the addition of a dwelling with unrestricted occupancy to the housing stock is a benefit which attracts moderate weight in favour of the proposal. The enhancement of the setting of the building through further landscaping would also be a further modest benefit which carries moderate weight in favour of the scheme.

Overall, the limited adverse impact of the proposal does not 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 applies to this appeal.

Conditions setting out the period for commencing the development and requiring that it be carried out in accordance with the approved plans are necessary to provide certainty. For reasons already given, it is reasonable and necessary to impose conditions to require the submission of a landscaping scheme in order to secure an enhancement to the immediate setting of the building. Having regard to Planning Practice Guidance, I have adjusted the appellant’s suggested wording to exclude the restriction on walls and fences as I have not seen any sound evidence that such a restriction is either reasonable or necessary. I have also included a separate condition which is necessary to secure the implementation of the landscaping scheme. A condition requiring the provision of bicycle parking space to ensure that adequate cycle parking is available is also reasonable and necessary to ensure that adequate bicycle parking is available to support the use of sustainable transport. I have adjusted the Council’s suggested wording to make it more precise.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations, specifically the Framework, indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.