Appeal 6005440

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: (i) whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy; (ii) whether the proposed development would make efficient use of land; and (iii) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy ST07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011 – 2031 (the LP) sets out the spatial strategy for rural areas within northern Devon. The policy and supporting text make it clear that there is a need for new dwellings across the area, and that a minimum of 2,000 dwellings should be provided in rural areas over the plan period. However, the strategy seeks to direct the majority of new dwellings towards more sustainable locations as listed within [name] and B of the policy. In this instance, the village of [site address] would be regarded as a ‘[name] under part 3 of the policy given that it contains at least one of the prescribed services or facilities.

The policy states that, within such settlements, appropriately located development of a modest scale will be enabled to meet locally generated needs. This is supplemented by Policy DM24 which notes that proposals for local occupancy dwellings to meet locally identified housing need will be permitted subject to certain criteria.

The proposed development before me would involve the provision of two open market dwellings, both set within spacious plots of land. The appellant has stated that he has been informed of local interest in purchasing the properties and that the two other properties on the wider site, which previously received planning permission1, have been sold to local people. However, this is anecdotal evidence and there is nothing substantial before me to ascertain whether there is any locally generated need for two open market dwellings, particularly of the size proposed. It is therefore not clear how the proposal has responded to the requirements of any local need.

On the basis of the lack of evidence before me, it is inevitable that I must conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would meet locally generated needs, and therefore that the scheme would conflict with [name] ST07, ST17 and DM24. Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to direct new development to sustainable locations and achieve a balanced housing market, while also restricting proposals in smaller [name] to those that respond specifically to locally identified need. Given that the proposal does not include affordable housing, it would also not accord with the requirements of LP Policy ST19 with regards to rural exception sites.

[name] have already noted, the proposed dwellings would be situated within relatively large plots of land with expansive outdoor garden areas. Given the size of the appeal site, and the density of existing development in the surrounding village, it is clear to me that the number of homes proposed could have been increased slightly to ensure that land is being utilised efficiently without resulting in harm to the character of the area.

On that basis, I conclude that the proposal does not represent an efficient use of land and it therefore conflicts with the relevant aspects of LP Policy DM04(k) which seeks to optimise land use.

The village is characterised by dwellings of different sizes and styles. In terms of materials used and scale, the proposed dwellings would not look out of place or incongruous. Furthermore, the site is well related to existing dwellings to the north, south and west and would not be seen as an intrusion into the surrounding countryside.

The overall plots of land, including the generous amount of garden space proposed, would be greater in size than many homes in the village. I have already found that the proposal would represent an inefficient use of land. However, given the development of two homes that has already been permitted on the adjacent site, which would have similar characteristics to the scheme before me, I do not find that the inefficient use of land would result in harm to character and appearance.

As a result, I am satisfied that the proposal would conform with the relevant aspects of [name] ST04, DM04 and DM08A which seek to ensure that new developments are well designed and that they preserve character and appearance. 1 Council ref: 75812

I have noted that two dwellings were previously permitted on the adjoining site. However, an updated version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in December 2024, after that planning permission was granted. The Framework now includes updated text to paragraph 11(d)(ii) which makes it clear which paragraphs of the Framework are of particular importance when undertaking the prescribed planning balance. On that basis, the context of this appeal is quite different to the previously permitted application, and this has led me to a different conclusion in this case.

The appellant has made reference to the draft update of the Framework. However, the final version has not yet been published, and it is not clear which aspects of the draft will be carried forward. As a result, given this uncertainty, the content of the draft version is not a determinative feature of this appeal.

From the evidence before me, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the current figure being 4.86 years. In such circumstances the test set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework is engaged.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of two new homes that would assist in meeting need in the wider northern Devon area, support for local facilities, and the creation of jobs during the construction phase. There would also be enhancements to biodiversity, while the dwellings would likely be energy efficient. I have considered paragraph 61 of the Framework which seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes. I have also considered paragraph 73 of the Framework, which recognises the importance of small sites in meeting the housing requirement of the area. However, I only afford limited weight to these benefits overall given that they are relatively minor in nature.

The conflict with the Council’s spatial strategy means that the social benefits associated with providing housing that meets locally identified needs have not been demonstrated. Indeed, I am very mindful of paragraph 82 of the Framework which states that, in rural areas, decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing that reflects local needs.

Moreover, the overall purpose of the Council’s spatial strategy is to direct the majority of new development to the most sustainable areas, including taking account of access to services and facilities. The village of [site address] contains some facilities such as a public house, village hall and church. However, it is clear that in order to access the types of facilities required for everyday living, including schools, supermarkets and sources of employment, future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be required to travel further afield, particularly to [name] to the north of the village. Given the nature of the lane that connects [site address] and [name], being unlit and fairly narrow with no pavement, it is unlikely that walking or cycling between the two settlements would be an attractive option.

It is not clear from the evidence before me whether there is a bus service that operates through [site address] . However, even if such a service exists, it is highly unlikely that it would be regular enough to act as a reasonable alternative to the private car. As such, I find that it is very likely that future occupiers would be largely reliant on the use of private cars to facilitate their everyday needs. Directing development towards sustainable locations is specifically mentioned within the wording of paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework. While paragraph 110 does note that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, the lack of facilities within [site address] and the subsequent reliance on private vehicles is critical in this instance. The harm associated with the appeal site’s location, and the conflict with the Council’s spatial strategy is therefore clear.

I have also concluded that there would be harm in relation to the inefficient use of land. Again, this issue is referred to within the wording of paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework. The lack of harm associated with character and appearance is a neutral factor within my decision.

As a result of these considerations, I find that when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Consequently, for the reasons given, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh the identified harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed.