Appeal 6004782

The appeal is dismissed.

The address in the banner heading above has been taken from the appeal form and decision notice as this more accurately describes the site than that given on the application form.

The application is made in outline with all matters reserved for later consideration. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis and have treated any detail shown on the plans to be indicative only.

The appeal was accompanied by a [name] dated 15th January 2026 securing financial contributions towards [name] and Green Infrastructure Provision. During the course of the appeal, an updated [name] dated 10th April 2026 (the UU) was submitted also securing the submission of a Biodiversity Gain Plan including detailed arrangements for the purchase of offsite biodiversity units to meet [name] (BNG) targets.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for housing, with particular regard to the local spatial development strategy, and the effect of the proposal on the character of the area.

The appeal site comprises a small paddock that adjoins the built form of Venn Green. It sits immediately beside the defined development boundary, which cuts across the existing access. The land is enclosed on two sides by existing and consented residential development, including two dwellings now under construction that front the A388.

Policy ST07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 October 2018 (LP) sets the spatial development strategy relating to the area. It includes provisions for development within Local Centres, Villages, [name] and the Countryside. [name] 4.10 states that the strategy will ensure that development does not exacerbate the areas dispersed settlement pattern, and that any conflicts with the principles of sustainable development are minimised.

The footprint of the proposed dwellings would sit just outside of, but adjoin, the settlement envelope of Venn Green. LP Policy ST07 identifies [site address] /Venn Green as a ‘Village’ where development will be enabled in accordance with the local spatial strategy to meet local needs and growth aspirations.

LP Policy MIL details the spatial strategy for [site address] /Venn Green and states that with regard to residential development, the vision for the rural settlements will be delivered through provision of residential accommodation from any future commitments, including affordable housing, to meet housing needs in the local community. The policy goes on to state that ‘Rural settlements have few facilities or services although development opportunities may occur to meet locally generated and quantified need in the individual settlement concerned.’ It finally states that a development boundary is identified, outside of which the principle of residential development is only supported on an exceptional basis.

Also of relevance, is Paragraph 12.715 of the LP that states that no specific housing sites are allocated at [site address] or Venn Green, although a small number of additional dwellings may be accommodated within the development boundaries.

[name] ST07 and MIL therefore restrict residential development to within the development boundaries, to affordable housing, and where they meet housing needs in the local community. The footprint for the dwellings is outside the development boundary and is not for affordable housing. Therefore, to gain support from these policies, the proposal would need to meet a locally generated and quantified need in the settlement. The main parties agree that the mix would comply with the Housing and Economic Needs Assessment (HEDNA) mix and I have no reason to disagree.

However, and with regard to LP Policy ST17, this requires that the scale and mix of dwellings should reflect identified local housing needs. As the appeal is not accompanied by substantive and compelling evidence that the appeal proposal is meeting a locally generated and quantified need or specific identified local economic or social need for housing in the local community, I find that a need in the settlement has not been demonstrated. Given this I do not find that compliance with the wider HEDNA mix in itself suitably demonstrates that the proposal would meet identified local housing needs for this settlement as required by [name] ST07 and MIL.

[name] acknowledge that the appeal site adjoins and is partly within the settlement boundary, benefits from a suitable access, connections to infrastructure and could be delivered quickly, the spatial strategy seeks to ensure that proposals do not exacerbate the areas dispersed settlement pattern, and that any conflicts with the principles of sustainable development are minimised. The provision of three dwellings would not significantly exacerbate the areas dispersed development pattern, and I acknowledge the presence of bus stops to the site’s frontage serving Holsworthy, Bideford, Torrington and Barnstaple, and presence of a nearby farm shop and ‘[name].

Nonetheless, I have had regard to LP Policy ST10 seeking to reduce the need to travel by car and enabling alternative transport options. I have also had regard to access to other services and facilities, including a range of retail, leisure, education and employment, being a considerable distance from the site, and to the limited number of bus services and limited goods for sale at the farm shop and café.

Given the distances to the other facilities, including a petrol station and church and chapel in [site address] , and access via roads generally without pavements and lighting, I find that occupiers of the development would be reliant upon the use of the car for the majority of journeys. Given the distance to a range of services and facilities, and given that the proposal is of a small scale limiting support for nearby services and facilities, I come to this conclusion even acknowledging that the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that rural residents will be more reliant upon the use of the car with development in rural areas supporting rural viability.

Furthermore, LP paragraph 12.709 identifies that Venn Green lies on a cross roads taking a linear form that radiates outwards. The linear form of development with the vast majority of dwellings fronting the roads was highly noticeable at the time of my site visit, including those being constructed to the front of the appeal site. This form of development provides a strong character to the settlement even acknowledging the varied plot sizes, depths and building lines. By reason of the introduction of dwellings to the rear of dwellings fronting the road, the proposal would be alien to the existing linear character and form of the settlement even taking into account its planted boundaries. As a result, I do not find that the proposal represents a logical rounding-off of the settlement.

I acknowledge that there is no formal definition of backland development in the Framework. I also acknowledge that the appeal site adjoins open land to two boundaries. Nonetheless, the appeal site is to the rear of existing properties. Even if I were to conclude that the proposal does not represent backland development, [name] ST04, DM04, DM08A and MIL seek to achieve development that responds to its wider context and surrounding area, that reinforces key characteristics of the area, that respect landscape character, and promote the retention of landscape character. For the reasons stated above, the proposal would not achieve these aims.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. I have no reason to disagree. There is however dispute between the parties with regard to the weight to be given to LP Policy ST21 in light of this.

LP Policy ST21 supports residential development outside of settlement boundaries where it contributes to an identified housing deficit and can be delivered quickly. However, this 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 my findings above with regard to the location of the development and harm identified to the character of the area, even if LP Policy ST21 were given full weight, I find that the proposal is contrary to criteria (c) and (d). As a result, the proposal does not gain support from this policy.

I acknowledge that the two dwellings to the front of the appeal site were granted permission in 2021 and 2022 but in the absence of the full details of these, I cannot be sure that the circumstances are directly comparable to the current proposal before me. Furthermore, these dwellings continue the linear form of the settlement, and I am required to consider the appeal proposal on its merits.

It follows from the above that the appeal site is not an appropriate location for housing, with particular regard to the local spatial development strategy, with the proposal having a harmful effect on the character of the area. As such, it is contrary to [name] ST04, ST07, ST10, DM04, DM08A and MIL, the aims of which I have outlined above.

I have had regard to the lack of objections to the proposal with regard to highway safety, drainage, ecology, living conditions, noise and construction. I have also had regard to proposed BNG enhancements and to the Council’s comments regarding the submitted UU. However, and even if I were to accept the UU as being necessary to make the development acceptable, as these are all requirements of local planning policy and national guidance, I give them very limited weight.

I have also had regard to reference to the Council’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) concluding that the site is suitable for small scale residential development given that it adjoins existing built development, would secure sustainable mixed communities with no significant environmental constraints and is available and achievable. Nonetheless, I have not been provided with a copy of the HELAA and do not have a date of publication. Moreover, the evidence before me states that any assessment is irrespective of current policy constraints and as such it is likely a technical document rather than policy guidance. In light of this, I give the HELAA limited weight.

Weighing in favour of the proposal there would be benefits to the supply and mix of energy efficient housing in the area, to the local economy from the build and occupation of the property, and it could be built out quickly making an efficient use of land. However, given the scale of the scheme the benefits would be modest.

Weighing against the proposal, the development would be contrary to the local development strategy and cause harm to the character of the area. The relevant policies 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. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Consequently, because of the provisions of footnote 7, paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework should be applied. The appeal proposal would provide a number of benefits, including providing much needed energy efficient housing which would contribute towards the supply and mix of housing in the area and could be built out quickly making an efficient use of land, and benefit the local economy from construction works and future occupiers using local services and facilities. However, given the scale and nature of the development, the benefits would be modest.

In contrast, I have found that the appeal proposal would be contrary to the local development strategy and would harm the character of the area. I give this harm significant weight. Accordingly, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.