Appeal 6005675

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my visit, some works on the appeal site including drainage arrangements and timber framing was evident. I have however assessed the proposal on the basis of the plans before me.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the Blackdown Hills National Landscape (NL).

The appeal site comprises a small wedge of land that is in the corner of a large, expansive field in the countryside. Buildings in the wider area vary in their design, scale and use of material, with a nearby village containing some thatched properties. However, the appeal site lies in an area mostly devoid of development., where there is no obvious prevailing built character or house type. Within this context, the NL is on the far side of a hedgerow bound lane that abuts the appeal site and is firmly within its setting. From this lane, and the track where the proposed site entrance would be, large punctuations in the treelined vegetation and raised canopies only partially restrict views towards several elevations of the appeal building. This is likely to be more pronounced at times of the year when trees are not in leaf.

The proposed dwelling would make use of a previous water storage tank building that is of modest scale. Broadly rectangular, rather than cylindrical, it is of very limited visual quality, and one which is mostly subterranean, save for a stepped accessed pump room and small store above low-level blockwork. The proposal would retain the central pump tower, providing some recognition of its historic use. However, the rather minimalist protrusions above ground would be absorbed into much more extensive additions. While the term ‘alien’ is strong, the proposal would nevertheless create a somewhat bulky and unusually prominent new feature in this attractive landscape. Even with marginally softening timber cladding and a flat roof design, the effect of the aforementioned harm would be exacerbated by extensive alterations to ground levels, as well as a further extension to the lower ground floor.

I agree with the appellant that further visual analysis of the proposal would be of little benefit. Based on my own observations, the development would be eminently conspicuous from a number of public vantage points. The lack of sensitivity in its design would also be appreciable from the verdant setting of the NL, even if public views are not obvious.

For the reasons given, I conclude on the main issue that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and the NL. As such, there would be conflict with strategies 7 and 46, and Policy D1 of the East Devon Local Plan. Amongst other things, these require proposals to conserve and enhance the landscape character of the area, whilst ensuring the scale and form of buildings relate well to their context.

Fallback – Within an extensive site history that I have had regard to, my attention has been drawn to a planning permission1 for an alternative scheme. There is no dispute between the main parties that a ‘notional start’ has been made, and I find no reason to disagree. It is well established that a fallback position can be a material consideration provided there is a real prospect of it being implemented, which is likely in this case. The fallback position can therefore be afforded considerable weight.

In light of this, it is claimed that the scale, extensions and materials all ‘match’ and that the view of the development from the street would be very similar. The approved scheme is however of a far smaller scale than that proposed and contains elements built into the landscape. Even with a less modern appearance including the absence of a glazed extension, the proposal’s southern elevation, with its substantial earthworks would introduce vastly more prominent features. These would not be more ‘in-keeping’ than the fallback in this location, but rather, particularly noticeable from gaps in the adjoining lane. Additionally, when viewed from the entrance, the bulk and massing of the north facing elevation would be significantly larger than the fallback resulting in a materially different and more harmful arrangement.

Within this context, it is acknowledged that a larger dwelling would provide a scale of accommodation to suit the needs of the appellant. So too is it understood that there may be design and cost challenges in completing the fallback. However, these considerations would not outweigh the identified harm.

I have had regard to the representations made in respect of the processing of the application. However, these have no bearing on my decision, which is based on the planning merits of the proposal. 1 Ref 22/2697/FUL

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says development should be in accordance with the development plan ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’, and this is reaffirmed in the National Planning Policy Framework.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no considerations individually or cumulatively, that outweigh this. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed