Appeal 6005489

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s Conservation Officer considers [site address] to be a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), owing to its age and style. Although this status provides no statutory protection, paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) advises that ‘the effect of an application on the significance of a NDHA should be taken into account when determining the application’. As such, I have considered this matter in more detail within my Other Matters section below.

Policy EN8 of the East Devon Local Plan 2013-2031 (2016) (Local Plan) requires proposals to be accompanied by an assessment which is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of a heritage asset. In this instance, a Heritage Significance Assessment by [name], dated 28 August 2025, has been submitted by the appellant. However, the assessment focuses mainly on the effect of the proposal on [site address] , the NDHA, without assessing the effect of the proposal on setting of [address], the [name] listed building, adjacent to the appeal site.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with specific regard to whether it would preserve the setting of [address], a [name] listed building, and to the National Landscape.

[site address] is rural in character, lined with hedgebanks which are interspersed with dwellings behind walls on one side. On the other side, open flat fields extend towards the [name]. The appeal site is with the East Devon National Landscape (National Landscape). It is characterised as ‘estate wooded farmland’ in the [name] and Blackdown Hills Landscape Character Assessment (2019) (LCA), which describes the special qualities of the landscape being rolling hills and nucleated historic hamlets.

The appeal site, [site address] , is described by the appellant as being of cob construction and is cut into the hill side in the middle of the plot, near to the front boundary. The building is dilapidated with plants climbing the external walls, however the simple rendered façade is still visible. The site is highly visible within the landscape, owing to the low front boundary wall, relatively low height of the hedgebank opposite, and the open fields beyond. Less visible are the outbuildings, which are tucked behind the main dwelling, and the garage which is to one side.

[site address] is the middle of three dwellings near to one another which have distinctive and unusual positionings perpendicular to the road. Although the dwellings are different in terms of their detailing, including the roof design, there is a general consistency in their orientation, pattern of development, scale, massing and use of light external colours with simple facades. Given its design and relationship to the neighbouring dwellings, the appeal site contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area, reinforcing the special qualities of the National Landscape.

Adjacent to [site address] is [address], a [name] listed building (List entry No. 1097534). Dating from the mid to late 17th century, the thatched cottage is of a cob, stone and brick construction, also positioned perpendicular to the road. [address] is a rare example of a well-preserved very small 17th century house, which forms its special interest. As such, I find the setting of the building, in so far as it relates to this appeal, to be primarily associated with its architectural and historical interest.

[address] is not as visible as [site address] owing to the height and density of the trees and shrubs on its side boundaries, and to a lesser extent, on its front boundary. [address] faces away from the appeal site and there is limited inter-visibility between them owing to the boundary treatments and the siting of the garage on the appeal site, near to the boundary of [address]. Nevertheless, the prevailing pattern of development is highlighted through the similarities between [address] and [site address] in terms of their perpendicular position in relation to the road, which is particularly obvious when viewing [address] front-on, and in glimpse views when passing it. As such, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the setting of [address].

[address] is to the other side of the appeal site, which is set further back from the road than [site address] . [address] has an L shaped footprint, the original form of the dwelling, which is perpendicular to the road, can still be seen. Accordingly, the group of three dwellings, formed by [address], [site address] and [address] form a cohesive collection of buildings with a consistent pattern of development.

The proposal would replace the existing dwelling with a larger, more modern dwelling. The principal elevation of the proposed dwelling would directly address [site address] . It would have a more complex plan form than the existing, introducing massing which would be parallel to the road, creating a wider and shallower building. The departure from the distinctive and unusual orientation of the host dwelling, and that of [address], would be a harmful addition that would erode the prevailing pattern of development, detracting from the setting of [address].

The height of the proposal would also be increased, which together with the increased massing, would result in a dwelling which would appear significantly larger in scale than the existing dwelling. This would be contrary to the LCA, which states that new buildings should be sympathetic to existing buildings in terms of scale. The increased scale would have an imposing impact which would be harmful given the comparitively modest heights of [address] and, in particular, [address]. When viewed as a group, the excessive massing and disproportionate scale of the proposal against its neighbouring dwellings would be highlighted, giving it undue prominence within the landscape, harming the setting of [address].

While the render and timber cladding would be traditional materials, the proposal would have a complicated façade, with elements at different depths and projections. In comparison to the simple designs of the existing dwelling, and the neighbouring dwellings, the proposal would introduce a complicated design which would not be in keeping with the neighbouring dwellings. Given that the appeal site is highly visible within the landscape, it would not assimilate into the wider landscape either.

Despite the use of traditional materials, the extensive areas of glazing on the front elevation, together with the complicated design, would introduce a contemporary dwelling into [site address] , where no other modern buildings are situated. The contemporary dwelling would be a departure from its traditional neighbours, and would unduly stand out among the group of 3 dwellings.

Although set further back within the plot, the proposal would appear close to the street owing to its orientation, increased massing, and contemporary design which create an imposing addition to [site address] . The existing front boundary wall would be retained and the appellant details that the frontage would be landscaped, however I have not been provided with any details of the landscaping, or how the existing wall together with the proposed landscaping would mitigate the imposing impact of the dwelling.

My attention has been drawn to the alterations at [address], which has been extended to the side. Despite the extension, the original footprint of the dwelling is still easily distinguished, and has retained the visual pattern of development of a dwelling perpendicular to the road. In addition, the design and detailing of [address] has remained relatively simple with a limited material palette, and has introduced simple windows, limiting large areas of glazing on the front elevation. In comparison, the original footprint of the existing dwelling at the appeal site would be lost, the design and detailing would be comparitively more complicated, and significantly more of the front elevation would be glazed.

The design of the proposed dwelling would reflect that of [address] (planning application ref. 14/0880/FUL), which is visible from the appeal site at a distance across flat fields. [address] is a contemporary design, with large areas of glazing and balconies. However, it is a single dwelling which is viewed on its own, in a different context to the appeal site. In this regard, it differs from the appeal site, as it does not form part of a group of dwellings, nor is it within the setting of a listed building.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the aims of Policy H6, which is not referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal. However, the requirement of one policy does not take precedence over another, and the policies within the development plan area read as a whole.

Bringing my findings together, the proposal would be an incongruous addition to [site address] owing to its orientation, contemporary design, and closeness to the road which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The Given its siting near to [address], the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the [name] listed building, harming its setting. Consequently, I give this harm considerable importance and weight in the planning balance of this appeal.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to their conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets or from development within their setting and that this should have a clear and convincing justification. Given my findings, I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight.

Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant has not advanced any public benefits of the proposal. However, the Council identify that the development would result in amenity benefits for future occupiers, securing long-term continued use of the dwelling, in addition to limited economic benefits during the construction phase. Although the proposal would improve residential amenity, this would be a private benefit. The economic benefit during the construction phase would be limited in nature, and would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

Given the above and in the absence of any significant public benefit, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the [name] listed building, [address]. As such, the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to which I have had special regard.

Paragraph 189 of the Framework identifies that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. It goes on to state that the scale and extent of development within National Landscapes should be limited. Given my findings, the incongruous design of the proposal, including the increased amount of glazing, coupled with its orientation and excessive massing would harm the special qualities of the National Landscape, specifically the character of the nucleated historic hamlet, to which I give great weight. As such, it would fail to conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would fail to preserve the setting of [address], and it would fail to conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape. The proposal would, therefore, be in conflict with Policies EN8 and EN9 of the Local Plan, and Policy B1 of the [site address] with Bicton Neighbourhood Plan: A Plan for the Parish up to 2031 (Neighbourhood Plan), which seek to ensure that proposals are accompanied by a sufficient assessment of the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of heritage assets, together with seeking to ensure that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm, any harm is weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal would also be in conflict with Policy D1 of the Local Plan, and Policy B2 of the Neighbourhood Plan, which seek to ensure that proposals respect the key characteristics and special qualities of the area in which the development is proposed, ensuring that the scale, massing, height and fenestration relate well to their context. In addition, Strategy 48 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that proposals retain intrinsic physical built qualities, and use local forms and styles which are essential to this distinctiveness.

There is no dispute that the appeal site, [site address] , is a NDHA. Its significance appears to derive from its age, which pre-dates mapping from 1843. However, both the Council and the appellant conclude that [site address] is of low heritage value. From the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree with this assessment. As such, in heritage terms, the loss of the NDHA would be acceptable in principle. Although the loss of the NDHA would be acceptable, this does not amount to a benefit that weighs in favour of the appeal proposal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.