Appeal 6004602

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council adopted the Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040 (LP) on 19 May 2026 and it is now the statutory development plan for the area. Therefore, the policies of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 adopted May 2014 that are listed in the Council’s reasons for refusal, form no part of my determination of the appeal. The parties had an opportunity to address the policies in the LP in their appeal submissions.

The Council’s decision notice refers to Policy EN1 of the LP which relates to the setting of settlements. However, I have not been provided with any evidence which demonstrates that the appeal site lies within one of the gaps set out in paragraph 2 of Policy EN1, nor that it is within the setting of a settlement. It would not therefore appear relevant to the proposal before me, and I have not assessed the proposal against it.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is in a suitable location for the proposed dwelling having regard to the development plan; • the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and • If harm is found, whether there are other material considerations that would be sufficient to outweigh the identified harm.

The appeal site lies outside of a defined settlement limit, in the open countryside. Policy GP3 of the LP seeks to strictly manage development, setting out a number of exceptions, which includes proposals for replacement dwellings. Replacement dwellings fall to be considered under Policy H13 of the LP.

Within the appeal site, there is a caravan which benefits from a lawful development certificate for residential occupation (CLDE)1. The information before me indicates that this relates to an area of land towards the south of the appeal site, adjacent to the road. I saw that there was a caravan located in this area, on lower ground close to the roadside hedge.

Whilst Policy H13 of the LP permits the replacement of caravans with a new dwelling, this is only where the existing structure is causing harm to the area. The location of the caravan and the available screening means that it is not particularly visible from outside the site and does not cause harm. In any event, the proposed residential curtilage and volume of the proposed dwelling would significantly exceed the limitations set out in the policy. The proposed dwelling would also not be sited on the footprint of the existing CLDE caravan. The proposal would therefore fail to meet the criteria set out in Policy H13 of the LP.

Therefore, the proposed development would introduce new housing into the countryside in a way which would conflict with Policies GP3 and H13 of the LP and this would undermine the planned approach to the distribution of new housing.

The appeal site is located in an area with sporadic housing interspersed with some commercial uses. While the site adjoins existing housing, the land immediately to the north and west comprises open fields, hedgerows, and trees, giving it a distinctly rural character.

The existing site comprises of areas of hardstanding and grass. I understand that the site operates as caravan site for up to 5 caravans and I saw that there were a small number of caravans on site. I also saw that there were a number of storage containers, vehicles and various items stored in the open which the appellant describes as visually intrusive elements.

The formation of the proposed residential curtilage would include the removal of hard surfacing and parking areas and their replacement with landscaped areas, trees and the provision of a new Devon hedge bank to the rear. The provision of a domestic curtilage even with associated domestic paraphernalia such as washing lines and garden furniture would not detract to a harmful extent from the character and appearance of the area, given the number and type of items currently on the site.

However, the proposed two-storey dwelling would be sizable. Located roughly in the centre of the site, it would have a footprint of [address] metres and an overall height of 9.1m. The resulting design, scale, bulk and siting of the dwelling would mean that it would be particularly prominent when approaching the site from the west. It would be a dominant feature in the landscape even when viewed in the context of the existing residential development adjacent to the site. The existing boundary hedges and proposed planting would do little to mitigate the effect.

This would have a harmful effect on the rural character and appearance of the area and conflict would arise with Policies GP1, DW2 and EN4 of the LP which seek 1 [name]: 21/02632/CLDE dated 4 February 2022 high quality design which responds to the surrounding context and maintains or enhances the character and appearance of the locality.

I give only limited weight to the previous permission for 4 holiday cabins as this has now expired. Given the very recent adoption of the LP, I cannot be certain that planning permission for an identical proposal would now be forthcoming or, in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, that it would be more harmful than

The appellant’s position is that the cumulative footprint of various uses and items on the site exceeds the footprint of the proposed dwelling. Even if I was persuaded that a sizeable two storey dwelling in place of numerous single storey structures and chattels was a betterment, there would need to be some formal means of securing the cessation of those activities for the betterment to materialise.

A planning condition cannot be used to require the cessation of activities which are lawful and a Section 106 legal obligation to secure their removal from the site, is not before me. Therefore, I cannot be certain that the stated benefits would arise in any event. My findings in this respect would be consistent with the previous Inspector2.

There is no evidence before me that the existing traffic movements at the site are harmful to highway safety. Even if the cessation of the uses on site had been secured, a reduction in traffic movements would attract little weight in the circumstances. The lack of harm in respect of drainage and the living conditions of existing residents are neutral factors which weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

[name] been minded to allow the appeal, I would have needed to consider the effect of the proposal on greater horseshoe bats, the integrity of the South Hams Special Area of Conservation and matters raised by an interested party. However, as the appeal is to be dismissed, I need not address these.

The proposal would fail to comply with the development plan in respect of the provision of housing, including replacement dwellings in the open countryside. I have also found that the design, scale, bulk and siting of the proposed two storey dwelling would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The limited weight I have given to other considerations, do not outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed.