Appeal 6005746

The appeal is dismissed.

In the absence of a full site address on the application form, I have utilised the details as provided on the appellant’s appeal form and the Council’s decision notice.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, taking account of the legitimate fallback position.

The appeal site currently contains an agricultural barn which benefits from prior approval for conversion to a residential dwelling1. Given that the prior approval was granted in January 2024, it represents a legitimate fallback position which has a greater than theoretical prospect of coming forward should this appeal fail. On that basis, it is appropriate to assess the proposed development against the relevant development plan policies, while also comparing it with the fallback position.

The appeal site is located in a highly rural area which is characterised by an attractive rolling landscape and scattered farmsteads. The site itself is in quite an isolated position, with the main buildings associated with [address] to the south. The existing barn which occupies the site is of a relatively modest size which sits comfortably within the rural landscape. The previously approved conversion of the barn to a residential use would change its appearance to some extent. However, it is clear to me that the existing character and essence of the 1 Council ref: 23/01900/PNCOU building, including the way it reflects the rural surroundings, would be largely retained.

In contrast, the proposal before me would result in the demolition of the existing barn and the construction of a one and a half storey split level home. The ridge height of the proposed building would only be marginally taller than the existing barn. I also acknowledge that the materials that have been chosen would be reflective of other buildings in the wider area. However, in terms of footprint and overall mass, it would be a much more significant structure than the barn. In effect, it would appear as a relatively large, modern home in an isolated position some distance from other buildings, within a highly rural landscape.

During my site visit, it appeared to me that there was an absence of such developments within the immediate area, and as such, it would be perceived as an incongruous feature which would seem out of place. Moreover, it’s size relative to the modest barn conversion would inevitably result in a greater landscape impact which would clearly detract from the rural character of the area to a much greater extent. The appeal proposal would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, both when considered in isolation and also when compared to the fallback scheme.

I recognise that the appeal site is fairly secluded with a lack of close range views from public vantage points. The existing barn is also partly screened from longer range views by trees and other planting, while there is also potential for further landscaping which could be secured via condition. However, this relative lack of visibility does not remove harm entirely, it only reduces it. In this instance, I find that the level of harm would be moderate in nature.

On the basis of these considerations, I conclude that the proposed development would conflict with Policies S1, S9, S14 and DM1 of the Mid Devon Local Plan 2013 – 2033. Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves character and appearance.

The proposed development would result in harm to character and appearance and would therefore conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. The proposal would not result in a net increase in the number of dwellings when taking account of the fallback position and would also not make more efficient use of land. There could be some benefits in terms of the creation of an energy efficient and sustainable dwelling. However, given the scale of the proposal, any such benefits are likely to be very limited. In addition, any enhancements to landscaping or biodiversity could be achieved without allowing this appeal.

Accordingly, I conclude that there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, including the existence of the fallback position, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed.