Appeal 6004022

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a large part of an open and expansive, sloping field in the countryside. Notwithstanding the rather unnatural combination of what appeared to be engineered site levels, the wider field contains attributes that are synonymous with The Culm National Character Area. This is recognised by its remote and sparsely populated rolling ridges and plateaux.

Leaving an existing access open, the proposed scheme for 2 mono pitched dwellings with accommodation over 2 levels would provide a new central access point. This would require the removal of part of an established and tree lined hedgerow that adjoins a country lane. Additionally, the plans show that substantial vegetation cut backs would be needed to provide adequate visibility.

While the properties would be distanced from the access, large parking areas, and pergolas close to the adjoining lane would still create a prominent foreground to the development. Although there is a degree of variety in built form within the wider vicinity, the proposed dwellings would be positioned on an extensive area of levelled ground which, as shown on the plans, would be both exposed and at odds with the natural topography of the site. I do not share the appellant’s view that the visibility of the development would be as limited as suggested in the submitted site section drawings or Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.

It is far more likely that the protruding bulk, massing, and assertive design of the dwellings, together with extensive areas of fenestration would appear stark and visually intrusive when viewed from the altered adjoining lane and from wider vantage points in the surrounding landscape. Additionally, while net gain matters are acknowledged, the area of land proposed for a residential use is disproportionately large for these 2 dwellings. Even with the removal of certain permitted development rights, the domestic paraphernalia typically associated with such a use would extend across and urbanise a significant expanse of countryside. As a result, the proposal would fail to represent an efficient use of land.

The development, including associated surfacing and pergolas would combine to create significantly harmful features in the rural landscape. This would conflict with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which says, amongst other things, that development should be attractive as a result of good architecture, layout, and effective landscaping.

I therefore conclude on the main issue that the proposal would have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be conflict with policies S9, S14, and DM1 of the Mid Devon Local Plan, which together in this respect, and amongst other things, seek to sustain the distinctive character of [name] environment, where new development should demonstrate a clear understanding of the characteristics of the site, making efficient use of land.

Fallback - The planning history of the appeal site is extensive and indicates a residential use has been established. Comparisons have been drawn between this proposal and a previous approval for 2 dwellings. Having paid regard to representations made, including those from interested parties, I have however not been provided with any firm evidence such as a lawful certificate, or confirmation that any conditions have been discharged, to demonstrate that the most recent permission can be fully relied upon as an extant fallback. As a material consideration, any possible fallback in respect of detailed design comparisons can therefore only be given very limited weight.

Even if I were to conclude otherwise, from the available evidence, the proposed access arrangements would reveal a great deal more of the site to housing development than anything previously permitted. Moreover, this appeal scheme would extend built form further into the wider rural landscape. Discussions based around site levels are noted, though either way, the plans show that further earth movement and levelling would be required. When viewed from the roadside, a previous single storey appearance of built form positioned closer to a well-screened hedge bank would be likely to have a significantly more recessed overall effect than that proposed. Additionally, this proposal includes a far larger residential area, which would be more harmful. That the proposal would not exceed the ridge height of a previous scheme which might require some building up of land to implement does not alter my view on this matter.

It is common ground that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, where there is a current supply of 4.79 years. There is also an undisputed claim that a recent appeal at [name] reduces the supply to 2.1 years. Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework indicates that where the required supply cannot be demonstrated, 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.

However, it is important that development happens in the right way, and the Framework explains in paragraph 11 d) ii. that particular regard is paid to key policies for making efficient use of land and securing well designed places. Such provisions are identified in footnote 9 and set out in paragraphs 129 and 135, amongst others. I have concluded above that the proposal would not make efficient use of land and neither would it be sympathetic to the area’s prevailing character and setting. This conflicts with key policies in the Framework. The Council’s environment, countryside, and design policies are consistent with the Framework and therefore the conflict with S9, S14, and DM1 does not fall away, but rather, carries significant weight in this appeal.

The social benefits of housing delivery can be afforded significant weight, yet these are moderated by the likelihood a residential use of land for 2 caravans has already been established. Even so, the proposal would provide a far superior level of accommodation built to modern standards, diversifying local housing mix. In this respect, the contribution to the housing shortfall would be modest, at best. The scheme would also bring some limited economic benefits to the construction industry and thereafter through extra consumer spending in the local economy.

Against any of the aforementioned benefits I need to balance the adverse impacts. The need to deliver good design and making efficient use of land are important considerations enshrined within the Framework. The harm caused to the character and appearance of the area would run contrary to these objectives. Overall, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. As such, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out within Framework paragraph 11.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says development should be in accordance with the development plan ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’, and this is reaffirmed in the Framework. In this respect, I acknowledge the case law cited by the appellant which emphasises that the development plan should be considered as a whole.

I have concluded above that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. As such, there would be overall conflict with the development plan. Furthermore, even when considered cumulatively, there are no other considerations, including a fallback or the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.