Appeal 6005672

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: (i) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the scenic beauty of the North Devon Coast National Landscape; and (ii) whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy and access to services and facilities.

The appeal site, which comprises part of a field and includes small equestrian buildings, is located on the edge of the small settlement of Darracott. The main nucleus of the settlement is to the west. A track, which runs off [address], is used to access the site as well as a linear row of homes immediately to the north.

The site forms part of the [name] (5C) which is noted within the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment as an area which is dominated by the sky and which has a sparsely settled and peaceful character with nucleated villages and hamlets in tributary valleys and around crossroads.

Importantly, the site also forms part of the North Devon Coast National Landscape (the NL). Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty within NL’s. Furthermore, the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 requires decision makers to actively seek to further the statutory purposes of NL’s.

The proposed development in this instance would involve the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a single dwelling. I note that the site was subject to a previous appeal decision wherein a proposal for a dwelling was dismissed1. The scheme before me differs from the previous proposal in terms of the size, appearance and siting of the dwelling. On that basis, some of the previous Inspector’s concerns have been mitigated, and for clarity, I do not find harm in relation to the appearance of the proposed building when considered in isolation.

I also note that the appellant has provided a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which was produced by [name]. The LVIA sets out that views of the appeal site are limited and that the proposal would have a neutral visual impact on the area along with some visual and landscape enhancement. However, while I have had careful regard to this document, it seems to me that it significantly underplays the level of landscape harm that would arise from the proposal.

Indeed, the proposed dwelling would be the only such development to the south of the access track in that immediate area, and there would be a significant landscape gap to the west before reaching the main built up area of Darracott. In addition, given that the land gently falls away to the south, the access track appears to form a natural boundary to the existing linear built form to the north of the site. As a result of these characteristics, it is clear to me that the proposal would be seen as a highly contrived and incongruous incursion into the surrounding landscape which would inevitably detract from the character of the area.

The proposal would of course be easily visible from the access track through the site entrance. It is important to note that the access track is a public right of way. Moreover, as noted within the LVIA, it would also be visible from field entrances on [address] to the south. The harm would therefore be readily apparent from the public domain. In reaching these conclusions, I have had regard to the limited height of the proposed dwelling and the significant landscaping scheme that is proposed. Nevertheless, I find that these aspects do not sufficiently mitigate the harm that would occur.

I also note that the proposed dwelling would have a fairly similar footprint to the existing equestrian buildings. However, equestrian activities are common in rural areas and blend in well within the landscape. In contrast, the proposed dwelling and parking area, as well as the inevitable domestic paraphernalia that characterises residential uses, would be a much more obvious and jarring feature.

On that basis, I conclude that the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the scenic beauty of the NL. It would therefore conflict with Policies ST14 and DM08A of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan, 2011 – 2031 (the LP), as well as Policy BE5 of the Georgeham Parish Neighbourhood Plan (the NP). Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves landscape character, including that of the NL. 1 Appeal ref: APP/X1118/W/22/3304360

LP Policy ST07 sets out the spatial strategy for the rural parts of the northern Devon area. In essence, the strategy seeks to direct new development to more sustainable areas, including where there is access to sustainable modes of transport.

In this instance, the settlement of Darracott does not contain any of the prescribed services and facilities set out within the LP, and so cannot be considered to be a ‘[name]. Instead, the site forms part of the countryside wherein the policy states that development will be restricted to certain types, including that which would meet local economic and social needs. Having regard to the evidence before me, I concur with the Council that the appellant has a strong connection to the immediate area. The policy must clearly be read in conjunction with paragraph 4.16 which states that ‘the Local Plan seeks to control dispersed development, guarding against development in unsustainable locations. The character of the countryside should be conserved and enhanced and new development will not detract from this’. I have already set out in the first main issue of this decision that the proposal would not meet these aims in so far as they relate to character and appearance.

Furthermore, there are no services and facilities in Darracott, and there is also a lack of bus services or safe walking and cycling routes to other settlements nearby such as Georgeham or Braunton. Therefore, while I acknowledge that the Framework says that there is a likelihood of there being less sustainable transport options in rural areas, it is nonetheless clear to me that future occupants would be entirely reliant on private motor vehicles to access the services and facilities that are required for everyday living. As such, while the proposal would not be ‘isolated’ in the context of paragraph 84 of the Framework, it would conflict with the overarching aims of LP Policy ST07 in terms of guarding against development in unsustainable locations. While the appellant would currently need to travel to the appeal site on a daily basis to look after the horses, this fact does not justify enabling unsustainable patterns of development.

On that basis, I conclude that there is a conflict with the relevant aspects of [name] ST01 and ST07 which, taken together, seek to provide development in sustainable locations, including within rural areas. I also note that the proposal cannot be in accordance with LP Policy DM24 on the basis that Darracott is not a [name]. Finally, it is also clear that Policy H3 of the NP is not of relevance in this instance given that the proposal is for a self-build home rather than affordable housing.

The benefits of the proposal include the provision of a single sustainably built self-build dwelling that would help address an existing deficit of such properties while providing some economic benefits during the construction phase and post occupation. There is also potential for an increase to biodiversity, while the proposal would also make use of the part of the site that can be considered to be previously developed. Indeed, the use of previously developed land is strongly supported by the Framework. However, given the small scale nature of this proposal, these benefits in combination would be fairly limited.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable sites, with the existing figure being 4.61 years. I have no evidence before me to suggest that this position is likely to improve in the short-term. The test set out within Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework is not invoked, however, because Paragraph 11d(i) and footnote 7 seek to protect areas and assets of particular importance, including National Landscapes. In this instance, I conclude that the identified harm to the NL is sufficient to provide a strong reason to dismiss the appeal. On that basis, the additional harm in relation to the location of the appeal site is not a determinative feature of this appeal given that, if there were no such harm in that regard, my decision would not be any different.

As such, I find that the proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed