Appeal 6006098

The appeal is dismissed.

Points of common ground between the appellant and the Council have been set out within the appellant’s statement of case, which largely rely on the Committee Report. However, Council’s decision was different to that recommended in the Committee Report. The Council’s appeal statement details the Council’s decision, some of which conflict with the appellant’s points of common ground. I have had regard to all evidence submitted in the determination of the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with regard to the retention of existing preserved trees.

[address] is lined with detached dwellings set within large plots along one side. Mature trees are interspersed among the low density residential plots, and rows of trees in hedgebanks form boundary features, contributing to the woodland village feeling of the [site address] area. Most of the trees are taller than the dwellings and as such, even trees that are further away are highly visible. The number of trees together with their maturity and height are an important and defining part of the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located at the end of [address], on a plot that gently slopes downwards, away from the lane. The site is outside of the built-up-area-boundary of [site address] , and is therefore within the countryside. The plot is bound by mature trees, and has an area of woodland near the lower part of the site. The development proposed would be a dwelling and garage within the central clearing.

Collectively, the trees on, and adjacent to, the site screen it from the surrounding area. Although the proposal would introduce built development into the previously undeveloped plot beyond the built up area of [site address] , the mature trees that bound the site would screen the proposal, limiting its visual harm within the countryside.

An Arboricultural Impact Assessment by Doug Pratt Tree Consultancy dated 19 January 2026 (Ref 2520/AIA [name]) (AIA) defined all the trees as either ‘category A’ or ‘category B’ trees, which are trees of high quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40 years, and trees of moderate quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20 years respectively. Given the quality of the trees on the site, it contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

A Daylight/Sunlight report by [name] dated 22 October 2025, which informed the AIA, has also been provided, which found that there will be sufficient light within both the dwelling and the outdoor amenity space, with regard to trees. The AIA subsequently concluded that the risk of the loss of trees due to shading would be limited.

However, both the Daylight/Sunlight report, and the AIA draw conclusions based on the current size of the trees. Given the proximity of the trees and their current crown spread in comparison to the proposed dwelling, garage, outdoor amenity area and track, it has not been adequately demonstrated that future growth of the trees would not affect daylight or sunlight entering the proposal. Equally, I have no convincing evidence before me that the trees on, and adjacent to, the site would not need to be pruned or felled in the future to address the effect of future growth.

The pruning or felling the trees would erode the boundary screening around the site. Even if the trees were only pruned, the loss of vegetative cover around the site would expose the dwelling, creating gaps in the screening. The visual impact of the dwelling, as a result of the eroded screening, would intrude into the countryside. In addition, the loss of trees at the site would be harmful to the woodland village character of the [site address] area, harmfully altering the relationship of the site with [address].

[name] appreciate that the appellant wishes to build a dwelling on the appeal site, I attach substantial weight to the harm to the character and appearance of the area which would result from the pruning or felling of trees as a result of the proposal.

I acknowledge that the trees on the site are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (ref 25/0057/TPO) (TPO) which was confirmed on 9 April 2026. The TPO was imposed owing to, among other things, the contribution of the trees to amenity and character, to prevent the ad-hoc loss of tree canopy, and ensure its future management is undertaken in an appropriate manner. Any works to trees would require justification, and consent from the Council. In addition, the Forestry Act 1967 (amended) provides a landowner’s allowance which permits the felling of up to five cubic metres of timber in a calendar quarter to enable small-scale woodland management. Any additional felling would require the land owner to obtain a licence. Nevertheless, the proximity of the proposed dwelling to trees could create pressure to prune or fell trees despite the protective mechanisms outlined by the appellant.

The proximity of the proposal to the nearby trees would likely result in a pressure to prune or fell the trees in the future, which would not be mitigated by the TPO or other protective mechanisms on the site. The result of the pruning or felling of any trees would harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Policies D1 and D3 of the East Devon Local Plan (2013 – 2031) (2016) (Local Plan) and Policies NP1, NP3 and NP26 of the Neighbourhood Plan for the parishes of [site address] and [site address] 2017-2031 (Neighbourhood plan), which collectively seek to ensure that developments preserve key features of the village, including trees, and that there is no net loss in the quality of trees.

In addition, the proposal would also be contrary to Strategy 46 and Strategy 47 of the Local Plan, and Paragraphs 20, 136 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), which seek to conserve the biodiversity value of land and minimise fragmentation of habitats, and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, including the benefits of trees and woodland.

The site is located within the 10km buffer zone of the Pebblebed Heaths Special Protection Area. However, given that I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, it is not necessary to address this matter in any further detail.

The Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The proposal is not in accordance with the aforementioned policies of the development plan, with the associated conflict reflecting harm to the character and appearance of the area, with regard to the retention of preserved trees. For these reasons, the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

Currently, East Devon District Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework explains that in these circumstances, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Paragraph 136 of the Framework requires opportunities to be taken to incorporate trees into developments, that existing trees are retained wherever possible. Paragraph 187 also requires decisions to contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services, including the economic and other benefits of trees and woodland. For this reason, the conflict between the proposal and Policies D1 and D3 of the Local Plan, and Policies NP1, NP3 and NP26 of the Neighbourhood Plan, carry significant weight in this appeal.

Set against this harm, the proposal would make a positive contribution to housing supply, particularly within the [site address] area, supporting the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. It would be in an area that is well-located and served by day-to-day facilities with sustainable transport links, and would provide a dwelling of a high-quality design appropriate to the locality. However, the addition of one dwelling would represent only a small contribution to the area’s housing supply, and therefore the scale of benefits associated with one additional dwelling would be modest.

Consequently, the scale of benefits associated with one additional dwelling would be modest. Therefore, the adverse impacts of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and retention of existing protected trees would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.