Appeal 6004911

The appeal is dismissed.

The emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 2020-2040 (ELP) is at an advanced stage of preparation and is likely to be found sound subject to some modifications. I understand that the policies referred to in the reasons for refusal are not subject to any modifications. Therefore, having regard to Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I have given them great weight in my determination of the appeal.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is in a suitable location for the proposed dwelling having regard to the development plan and the appeal site’s proximity to services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of existing occupiers with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal site lies outside of the defined settlement limits of any of the settlements set out in Policies S21 and S22 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013- 2033, adopted May 2014 (LP). Accordingly, the appeal site is located in the open countryside where development plan policies strictly manage development. The proposal would not comply with any of the exceptions set out in Policy S22 of the LP.

I have not been directed to any local facilities which exist close to the site nor been told of any bus services operating in the area. I understand that there are local services in Ide village. However this is over 1 mile away and accessed via a road which is unlit in places and lacks a pedestrian footway. For these reasons, I would foresee that occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be reliant on the private car to access day to day services and facilities.

Therefore, the proposed development would introduce new housing into the countryside. This would undermine the planned approach to the distribution of development as set out in the LP and conflict with Policy S22 of the LP which requires regard to be had to travel patterns and the need to create accessible and sustainable settlements.

The existing property sits in a plot which benefits from a hard surfaced area to the front, which I saw was used for parking. At the rear, the compact garden is on two levels each comprising a patio area. Both areas are enclosed by fencing, offering a private area for occupiers of the existing property to sit out and relax.

The proposed dwelling would be provided with its own parking and garden area on higher ground to the side of the property whilst the existing front and rear garden areas would continue to provide outside space for the existing property.

The proposed development would include the installation of windows to both the front and rear roof slopes to serve the proposed dwelling. The windows to the front would serve bedrooms and look out onto the hard surfaced area to the front of the existing property. As these would look out over the parking area and serve secondary rooms, this would have a limited impact on the privacy of the occupiers of the ground floor property.

However, the windows in the roof space at the rear would serve the main living areas of the proposed dwelling. Located above the existing dwelling, occupiers of the proposed dwelling would have a direct view into the rear garden of the ground floor property. This would reduce the level of privacy enjoyed by the current occupiers to a harmful extent.

The proposal would conflict with Policy S2 of the LP and Policy H12 of the ELP which seek well designed private spaces and to prevent development which could result in the loss of privacy.

The appeal site forms part of a cluster of existing buildings and dwellings, so it is not isolated. That said, Paragraph 84 of the Framework does not provide specific support for homes which are not isolated, rather it sets out the circumstances in which isolated homes would be acceptable.

My attention has been drawn to a previous appeal at the site1, although I have not been provided with a copy of the decision. However, from the limited information before me, I understand that the decision dates back a number of years when the development plan policies were different and the proposal was for a conversion rather than a new build. The circumstances would not therefore appear comparable 1 Appeal Ref: APP/P1133/A/14/2211660 to the proposal before me which relates to the construction of a new residential unit.

I understand that new dwellings have been approved elsewhere in [site address] . I have no specific details of the circumstances surrounding these permissions but I understand that these relate to conversions permitted under Class Q2 and on previously developed land where different planning considerations prevail. On the limited information before me, I am unable to draw any comparisons with the appeal proposals.

Even if I found that the appeal proposal resulted in a building which was more in keeping with the scale, form and appearance of the neighbouring properties, there is no evidence before me that the existing building is harmful in these respects. As a result, I give this only limited weight.

Compliance with other policies in the LP, relating to amongst other things, carbon reduction and landscape does not overcome the identified harm and are neutral in my consideration of the appeal.

The Council’s decision notice refers to the proposal as self-build and a planning condition securing its occupation as such, has been suggested by the Council. However, this would need to be secured by Section 106 planning obligation (s106) as a condition controlling the occupation of the property would not be enforceable. In the absence of a s106, I am unable to give more than very limited weight to the proposal being a self-build in the planning balance.

Given my findings above regarding the lack of a s106 to secure the proposal as self-build, had I been minded to allow the appeal, I would have needed to consider whether the statutory requirement for biodiversity net gain had been met. I would have also needed to consider the effect of the proposal on protected species, with particular regard to bats, as set out in the Council’s third reason for refusal and the effect of the proposal on the qualifying features of the Exe Estuary Special Protection Area. However, as the appeal is to be dismissed, I need not address these matters.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan. 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.