Appeal 6004123

At my visit, the access gate to the site was completely overgrown with waist height brambles, such that I could not gain access to the area of the site where the proposed dwelling would be sited. However, I was able to view this area of the site over the boundary wall, from the verge which fronts the highway. I was also able to access the field gate proposed for the vehicular access position, and to view the area of the site from the adjacent lane to the north-east. I am therefore satisfied that I was able to gain sufficient understanding of the site and its surroundings, to determine the appeal.

The application form describes the development as the change of use of a small area of land to site a mobile home. The Council’s decision notice references the description as change of use of agricultural land and siting of mobile home for holiday accommodation purpose. However, the appellant has confirmed that this is incorrect, and that they intend to permanently occupy the mobile home as their residence. I have therefore used the original description of development in the header, and have determined the appeal on the basis of permanent residential use.

My attention has been drawn to the emerging East Devon Local Plan. However, this is noted as being at Regulation 19 stage and has not yet been put forward for examination. I have therefore afforded it little weight in the determination of the appeal before me.

The main issues are: • whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location and the spatial strategy in the development plan; and • the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the Blackdown Hills National Landscape (BHNL); and • whether the proposal provides adequate safe vehicular access and parking for future occupiers; and • whether the proposal makes adequate provision for the disposal of foul sewage and the management of surface water drainage.

The appeal site is described as being the site of the former [address], a small residential cottage which was demolished in the mid-1990’s in order to accommodate improvement works to the A30. The appellant therefore contends that the site has a residential use, though on the application form described the existing use as agricultural. The Council consider that as the cottage was demolished around 30 years ago, the former residential use has been lost, the use reverting to agricultural land, though they acknowledge that the floor slab and foundations of the former cottage remain. Given the intervening time since demolition, I concur with the Council’s view that residential use has been lost.

The site lies outside any defined settlement and therefore lies within an open countryside designation. It is therefore subject to assessment under Strategy 7 of the East Devon Local Plan (2016) (the Local Plan). This policy only permits development in the countryside where it is in accordance with a specific Local or Neighbourhood Plan policy that explicitly permits such development and where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities within which it is located. There is not evidence before me of any Neighbourhood Plan policies that would provide support for the proposal.

As the appellants agent had suggested the proposal was for tourist use, the Council examined it against the development plan policies that would provide support for tourism use. However, the Council found that the proposals would not meet the criteria that would have been gained support from those policies.

However, as the appellant has now confirmed that this is not the case, the proposal needs to be assessed against the wider housing policies of the Local Plan. The proposal is not within any of the larger towns or villages which may have gained support for development. There is no evidence before me that suggests the proposal would provide a dwelling for persons employed in rural businesses, which may have been supported by policy H4. Nor is the proposal for the replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside, which may have gained support from policy H6, the appeal site having lost its residential use following demolition of the original cottage in the mid-1990’s.

The proposal would therefore not be supported by any other Local Plan policies which might have given the specific policy support required for the proposed development to be acceptable in accordance with Strategy 7 of the Local Plan. In addition, the site has limited access to public transport, is some distance from the nearest services, with no safe public footpaths to provide pedestrian access, and is adjacent to a very busy road with fast moving traffic, which has no segregated cycle lanes. It is therefore not located within a sustainable location, even allowing for the acknowledgement of paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), that this may be more difficult to achieve in rural areas.

For the above reasons, I find the appeal proposal would represent residential development in the open countryside, in an unsustainable location. It follows therefore, that it would be contrary to Strategies 5B and 7 and Policy TC2 of the Local Plan. These require, among other things, development to promote sustainable modes of transport, to be located where it would not harm the distinctive landscape, amenity and environmental qualities within which it is located, and to be located so as to be accessible by pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.

The appeal site is located on a small parcel of land to the western side of the A30, opposite the point at which the highway splits, forming a Y-junction, the main branch becoming the A303 running to Ilminster, whilst the other branch remains as the A30 and travels east to Chard. The site lies at the centre of the BHNL, with mature trees to its southern boundary and to the southern section of its western boundary. There are open views west from the A30 over the central portion of the site, where the proposal would be located, to the village of Ottery and the [name] beyond, whilst views are more restricted to the north by the mature woodland which adjoins the adjacent field to the north.

The site is within an area defined as ‘1A [name] in the [name] and Blackdown Hills Landscape Character Assessment (2019). Its key characteristics are extensive views of rolling agricultural countryside with isolated development and patchworks of woodland and tree and hedge enclosed fields. The landscape aim is to seek to keep plateau edges free of intrusive development.

Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) amended the duty placed on relevant authorities required by the Countryside and Right of Way Act 2000 (CRoW Act), requiring relevant authorities and decision makers to ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of protected landscapes, of which the BHNL is one. It requires, as far as is reasonably practical, relevant authorities to seek to avoid harm and to contribute to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristics of [name]. Further, paragraph 189 of the Framework requires great weight to be given to protecting the scenic beauty of National Landscapes.

The proposal, whilst being of a modest size and overall height, and being set around 1.4 metres lower than the level of the highway, would be visible above the stone boundary wall which runs along the site’s frontage. The retained slab of the former cottage that occupied the site is level, resulting in the western-most section of the slab being raised above the natural ground levels of the surrounding land by over a metre. As a result, the proposal would be more prominent in views north and south from the A30/A303.

Whilst the materials used in the proposal would be visually low-key in their overall impact, they would not follow the traditional vernacular architecture found in the area, such as at [address], located opposite the site on the other side of the A30. The proposal would introduce a non-traditional, shallow pitched form into the gap between the tree belts, harmfully obstructing a portion of the open, distant views to the west, across the BHNL at this location.

Having regard to my duties under the LURA and [name], I find the appeal proposal would therefore harm the scenic beauty of the wider BHNL, and would not conserve its natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristics. It follows, therefore, that it would be contrary to Strategy 46 and Policy D1 of the Local Plan. These require, among other things, that development provides a high quality of design which conserves and enhances the natural and historic landscape character of [name], particularly in National Landscapes.

The A30 highway adjacent to the appeal site is subject to a 50mph speed limit. It is a very busy road with fast moving traffic. There are no pedestrian footpaths to either side of the carriageway at this location. The appeal site has a pedestrian access gate within the wall at the rear of the grass verge, which provides access via steps down to the area of slab on which the proposed mobile home would be sited.

The planning drawings indicate four ‘existing access’ positions. One is the pedestrian gateway through the wall. At my visit, the two access positions to the north and east of the site were not evident in the locations identified on the plans. The only evident means of access was via a field gate to the field to the south-west of the appeal site, which the site location plan identifies as the existing shared access.

At my visit, this access was a field gate providing farm access to the field. There was no surfaced track or other evidence that this field gate was in use for providing access to the appeal site. Indeed, there was a post and wire fence which secured the boundary of the appeal site, and which did not appear to have any access gate which would have allowed vehicular access to the site.

The submitted drawings do not identify any enhancements to the field gate access position, nor do they identify compliance with required vision splays. Whilst the section of the A30 where the existing field access gate is located is straight, it is situated close to a brow in the hill. There are also major road signs either side of the existing access, associated with the junction of the A30 with the A303, and which would restrict visibility for traffic exiting the access position.

National Highways as the authority for the adjacent A road, has objected to the proposal due to inadequate information, and their concerns in relation to creating a further access onto an A road. They further note that the existing field access is not suitable to be shared with a residential use which would be using it on a regular basis, and visibility splays have not been demonstrated.

Whilst the appellant has suggested that there is ample space for parking and turning within the site on existing hard standings, the appeal drawings do not identify the location and configuration of this to evidence its suitability. The appellant has also suggested that they have agreement to park on the lane to the north-east of the site, and to access on foot to the proposal. However, this has not been demonstrated in any proposal, and at my visit, this lane appeared narrow, unmade and with little space for parking, and with little evidence of a means of access to the appeal site present.

For the above reasons, the appeal proposal has not adequately demonstrated how safe vehicular access and parking can be provided for occupiers of the proposed mobile home. I therefore conclude that the appeal development would be contrary to Policies TC7 and TC9 of the Local Plan, which require, among other things, development to demonstrate that means of access and traffic generated by the development would not be detrimental to the safe and satisfactory operation of the local or wider highway network, and to provide sufficient vehicular and cycle parking relative to the extent of development.

The application drawings contain no details of how either foul or surface water drainage will be dealt with from the proposals. The application form is silent on the method of disposal of surface water, whilst it describes the method of disposal for foul sewage as being to ‘other’, with no definition of what this entails.

Evidence before me at the appeal now states that the foul drainage would be disposed of to a ‘low-level, EU approved septic tank, to be regularly emptied under contract’. However, no details of this have been submitted, its location, capacity, or the method and regularity of required emptying, and how this would be accessed.

Given the above, the appeal proposal has not demonstrated how foul sewage and surface water drainage, related to the proposed use of the site for residential purposes, can be adequately disposed of and suitably managed. I therefore conclude that the appeal development would be contrary to Policy EN19 of the Local Plan and guidance contained in the Planning Practice Guidance.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal development would be contrary to the development plan, read as a whole, and that there are no material considerations that would justify determining other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.