Appeal 6003960

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The address in the banner heading above has been taken from the appeal form as this more clearly identifies the site than that given on the application form.

The application seeks outline planning permission with matters of Access and Scale for consideration. As a result, Appearance, Layout and Landscaping are reserved matters with any details related to this on the plans before me indicative only.

The appeal is accompanied by a revised [name] Plan1. The plan has not been subject to formal public consultation, and the Council did not accept it as part of the planning application. I also note the comments from the Council with regard to the confusion caused to interested parties from the inclusion of the revised plan within the appeal documents. Given this and given that Scale is for consideration, relates to the height, width and length of each building, and is altered on the revised plan by virtue of the introduction of a 1 bed 56m2 unit, accepting this evidence at this stage would be unfair or deprive those who should have been consulted the opportunity of such consultation. Therefore, having regard to the principles of Holborn2, acceptance of the plan would be procedurally unfair and as a result I have not therefore taken it into account in determining this appeal. 1 C377 22 202 K 2 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin)

During the course of the appeal the appellant submitted a signed and completed [name] (UU) with covenants related to the provision of three [name] affordable dwellings and the payment of contributions towards the provision of off-site open space and education.

The main issues are:  whether the proposed development would preserve the setting of the [address] and the effect on the setting of the Westleigh Conservation Area (WCA) and the character and appearance of the wider area; and,  whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for housing with particular regard to the local development strategy;

The appeal site comprises agricultural land at the western edge of Westleigh between existing development to its northern and southern boundaries. The existing boundary with the public highway to the east is formed by a large hedge. Beyond the hedge, the appeal site is raised a significant distance above the level of the road.

[address] is a modest two-storey thatched property located at the back edge of two lanes roughly opposite the proposed access to the development. Due to land levels on the appeal site, [address] sits at a considerably lower level.

[address] is set within the narrow rural lane adjoining the appeal site that is enclosed by high hedging. It is mainly viewed and experienced from the adjacent lanes, although it also sits against the backdrop of modern development forming part of the settlement. Its significance lies in its architectural and historic interest as a rural thatched cottage. The presence of the high hedge and narrow rural lanes reinforce the rural architectural character of the building and its verdant rural setting, particularly when viewed from the lane to its frontage and on approach from the north. The hedge, narrow lane form and undeveloped nature of the appeal site therefore form an important part of its setting and contribute positively to its significance by virtue of retaining views of the cottage in association with the countryside that formed part of its original setting.

As a result of the loss of the hedge and creation of the access to the development, including footways, and by virtue of the altered land levels and visual appreciation of 9 dwellings through the wide access on raised land, the proposal would open up the lane detracting from, and causing harm to the visual experience and appreciation of [address] undermining its verdant rural setting. Given the size and engineered nature of the proposed access including a wide apron and footpaths, this would be the case even following the introduction of planting adjacent to the access and elsewhere within the site.

[name] note that Layout is indicative only and that the dwellings could be set back from the road, given the location of the access in a prominent position immediately opposite [address], even with dwellings towards the western site boundary, built form would be viewed through the access and would be clearly seen in the context of the listed building and its wider setting. As such, the distance to proposed dwellings would not result in the removal of the harm identified above to the setting and significance of the listed building from the introduction of the built form.

The WCA is characterised by its built form comprising a number of listed buildings and other buildings as a former farming village in a landscape of field enclosures which preserve elements of its earlier layout. The appeal site lies outside of, but very close to the western edge of the WCA.

The Westleigh Conservation Area Character Appraisal identifies that the narrow streets of Westleigh hide the surrounding landscape from view. It also identifies views from the Village Hall North West over the appeal site as being a [address] along with views along the road to the front of [address] and the access to the village hall. The agricultural fields and rural context, including the appeal site, which inform the agricultural origins of the village therefore provide the setting to the WCA. The narrow road and hedge to the appeal site frontage, and undeveloped nature of the site connecting the WCA to the countryside, alongside the architectural interest of the settlement, make a positive contribution to the setting of the WCA by retaining its rural context and landscape

By reason of the introduction of the heavily engineered new access and development raised above the lane, the proposal would significantly alter and urbanise the narrow street to the front of the appeal site visually and physically undermining the connection of the WCA to the countryside. Furthermore, the proposed built form would disrupt the [address] from the Village Hall by virtue of its position centrally within the [address] at close range. This would be the case despite the proposal not resulting in any wider significant visual harm with regard to other views into or out of the settlement or on the wider landscape as set out within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment April 2025 by David Wilson Partnership.

Consequently, I find that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the setting of [address], the setting of the WCA and on the wider character and appearance of the area. In this context, the scheme would give rise to less than substantial harm towards the lower end of the scale to the significance of these heritage assets. However, it is important to note that less than substantial harm does not equate to a less than substantial planning objection. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that less than substantial harm be weighed against public benefits of the proposal.

In this regard, the proposal would add to the mix of housing stock, address a short-fall in and boost housing delivery, provide affordable housing, provide on-site public open space, as well as construction and economic benefits and associated jobs with occupiers supporting local services and facilities (including the village hall) through increased spend, and could be built out quickly. However, these benefits do not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the listed building and setting of the WCA to which I give considerable importance and weight.

It follows from the above that the proposed development would fail to preserve the setting of the [address] and would have a harmful effect on the significance of the Westleigh Conservation Area and the character and appearance of the wider area. The proposal therefore conflicts with the statutory presumption under s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the setting of listed buildings. It is also contrary to Policies ST14, ST15, DM04 and DM07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 October 2018 (LP). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development conserves and enhances northern Devon’s local distinctiveness, historic environment, conserve historic features of national and local importance and their settings, reinforce the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed, and conserve and enhance heritage assets and their setting.

There is no dispute between the main parties that Westleigh is not identified as a Local Centre or a Village under LP Policy ST07. As a result, given that it contains at least one prescribed service or facility, Westleigh falls under the [name] designation of the policy.

LP Policy ST07 states that in [name], appropriately located development of a modest scale will be enabled to meet locally generated needs. There is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal site is closely related to the existing settlement, and I have no reason to disagree. Furthermore, I consider the provision of 9 dwellings adjacent to a settlement the size of Westleigh, at the relatively low density proposed, to be of a modest scale and proportionate to the settlement size.

However, LP Policy ST07 states that development within [name] should meet locally generated needs. This is reflected in [name] ST17 and DM24 that seek to ensure that the scale and mix of dwellings reflect identified local housing needs and that proposals for ‘locally identified housing need’ will be supported where the scale is proportionate to the settlement’s size, form and character. LP paragraph 13.133 clarifies that ‘The primary purpose for allowing limited housing in [name] is to sustain their vitality and to meet the needs of the local community by identifying that a ‘locally identified need’ can be demonstrated. Speculative development will not be supported in view of sustainability considerations.’ LP paragraph 4.15 clarifies that beyond Local Centres and Villages, opportunities to achieve sustainable development is diminished by the increasing absence of services and facilities.

As a result, [name] ST07 and DM24 (e) only support development that meets a locally generated need, do not support speculative development and where development does not harm the settlement’s rural character and setting. [name] have found above that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, and cause harm to heritage assets, the proposal is contrary to LP Policy DM24 (e).

I acknowledge the appellant’s case regarding the proposal meeting the Council’s general housing need for the district due to a shortfall in its five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, and I will return to this below. Nonetheless, the proposal is not supported by substantive evidence demonstrating that the proposal as a whole is meeting a locally generated need for open market or affordable housing of the number, scale and type proposed resulting in social sustainability.

I have had regard to the reference to the [name] (dated October 2019) (the Report) identifying the need for 2 affordable homes between 2019-2024 and to the lack of houses built since the Report was published. Nonetheless, as the Report was commissioned a number of years ago with an end date of 2024, I cannot be sure that it reflects current housing needs and as such give it limited weight. Even if I were to accept that the findings of the Report are still relevant today, this identified the need for 2 affordable units with the proposal providing 3 units without evidence of a local need for the additional unit. Furthermore, the appeal is accompanied by little substantive evidence demonstrating a locally generated need for the three affordable units to be provided in the form of [name] dwellings, even noting the agreed discounted price in the UU. As a result, I do not find that a locally generated need for the 3 affordable housing units in the form proposed has been clearly demonstrated.

I therefore find that a locally generated need for the scale of the proposal has not been demonstrated. In light of the lack of substantive evidence demonstrating an identified local need, justifying the need for 3 affordable units in the form proposed or that this amount of market housing is the minimum required to deliver the affordable housing, the proposal does not gain support from LP Policy ST19. This is the case despite the limited number of dwellings permitted in Westleigh in the last 35 years.

My attention has been drawn to LP Policy ST18(b) that would not require the delivery of affordable housing on the site due to its rural location and being between 6 and 10 dwellings, instead requiring a financial contribution. However, due to paragraph 65 of the Framework criteria (c) to LP Policy ST18 is in force with criteria (a) and (b) set aside. Given this, Policy ST18 requires 30% on site provision within [name].

I acknowledge that Westleigh benefits from a village hall, public house, cricket club and church with nearby regular bus services on the B3233 to Bideford, [name]! and Barnstaple, and is located close to the [name]/[name] such that it would reduce the reliance on the car. However, by reason of the access to the bus services and [name] being a considerable distance via unlit narrow roads without pavements, and by reason of access to a range of leisure, health, education, employment and retail services and facilities being a considerable distance from the site, I find that occupiers of the development would be reliant upon the use of the car to a significant degree. This is the case even acknowledging that access to services and facilities vary between rural and urban areas. It is partly due to the limited access to a range of services and facilities that Westleigh is designated as a [name] under LP Policy ST07. While the proposal would support services in other settlements, due to the modest scale of the proposal and reliance upon the car, such benefits would also be limited.

There is dispute between the main parties with regard to the weight to be given to LP Policy ST21 in light of the Council not being able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Although the appellant directs me to an appeal decision3 where LP Policy ST21 was given weight, I note that this pre-dates the latest revision to the Framework and its modification to the standard method for calculating the local housing need. 3 APP/X118/W/23/3318751

Nonetheless, LP Policy ST21 supports residential development outside of settlement boundaries where it contributes to an identified housing deficit and can be delivered quickly. However, support from the policy is subject to the proposal being broadly consistent with, and not prejudicial to and contributing towards the positive achievement of the plan’s overall spatial strategy and vision, along with the relevant settlement vision and development strategy, and is in accordance with other LP policies in all other respects as far as they apply.

In light of the harm identified above to the significance of [address], setting of the CA and character and appearance of the area, the proposal would not comply with criteria (d) to Policy ST21 of the LP. As a result, and even if Policy ST21 were afforded full weight, the proposal does not gain support from this policy.

Although the likelihood that [name] may find it impractical to manage three dwellings in this location weighs in favour of the provision of [name] dwellings, this does not outweigh the lack of identified local need for the affordable housing proposed and does not outweigh the harm from the location of the development.

It follows from the above that I find that the appeal site is not an appropriate location for the proposal with particular regard to the local development strategy. As such, it is contrary to [name] ST07, ST08, ST17, ST19 and DM24. Amongst other things, these state that in [name] development of a modest scale will be enabled to meet locally generated and identified housing needs, that development will be focused at the Sub-regional, Strategic and [name] to increase self-containment through sustainable growth, that the scale and mix of dwellings should reflect identified local housing needs, that affordable housing on exception sites will be supported where there is an identified local need and the element of market housing is the minimum amount required.

I have had regard to the development proposing a safe and suitable access to the local highway from a technical perspective, lack of harm to living conditions and to the provision of adequate drainage and mitigation for ecology and delivery of [name] and planning obligations. However, as these are requirements of local planning policy and national guidance, and necessary to mitigate the impact of the development, I give these matters very limited weight.

Weighing in favour of the proposal, is an urgent district and nation-wide need for housing including affordable housing, boost to the supply and mix of homes and affordable housing, and it would provide economic construction benefits and associated jobs with occupiers supporting local services and facilities through increased spend and on site public open space. As such, the delivery of 9 dwellings would contribute towards the area’s housing supply and provide other benefits, and its modest scale means it would likely be built out relatively quickly and would make an effective use of land. However, given the scale of the proposal and lack of substantive evidence regarding the form of affordable housing, the benefits would be moderate.

Weighing against the proposal, the development would be contrary to the local development strategy, would be reliant upon the use of the car, harm the significance of a listed building and setting of the WCA, and harm the character and appearance of the wider area. The relevant policies in these regards are largely consistent with the Framework where it states that planning decisions should guide development towards sustainable solutions whilst reflecting the character of an area and conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, and I note the appellants comments with regard to this shortfall having covered a number of years. However, I have found above that the proposal would cause harm to designated heritage assets that would not be outweighed by the public benefits, and this is contrary to the provisions of Chapter 16 of the Framework that seeks to conserve and enhance such assets. Given footnote 7 to Paragraph 11 d) i. of the Framework, and the harm I have identified to an asset of particular importance in the form of heritage assets, this provides a strong reason for refusing the development and there is no need for me to carry out the assessment in Paragraph

d) ii. of the Framework.

Even if Paragraph 11 d ii) were engaged, I find that the adverse impacts with regard to conflict with the local development strategy, harm to the significance of a listed building, and harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and wider area, are substantial and do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the moderate benefits identified above. This is the case even taking into account the objective to promote the effective use of land and to significantly boost the supply of housing and affordable housing and considering the Council’s housing land supply position.

Overall, for the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.