In a seven page decision paper dated 11 June, the Planning Inspector dismissed the Badger Close appeal against planning refusal for an indicative 46 houses in Newton Poppleford. This is welcome news coming hard on the heels of our report that Newton Poppleford faces yet another new planning application.

The Inspector’s decision paper presents important, and in places complicated, arguments which EDA experts have tried to simplify.

The main issues were: (a) whether the appeal site represented a sustainable location for the proposed development; and (b) the effect of the proposal on the area’s character and appearance, bearing in mind the site’s location in the East Devon AONB and, more specifically, have the exceptional circumstances for granting permission for major developments in AONBs been demonstrated?

Does the appeal site represent a sustainable location?
The Inspector concluded that the appeal site did not represent a sustainable location for the proposed development. The crunch argument turned on access to the village centre. The Inspector noted that the poor quality of the pedestrian linkages between the appeal site and the village’s main services and facilities represented a serious failing.

Character and Appearance – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Since the proposed development would be approximately 5% of the size of the existing settlement, the Inspector concluded that in the context of the village, and in the light of the scheme’s visibility from a main approach road, it would be a significant addition. Under these circumstances (NPPF para 116) major development should only be granted in AONBs in exceptional circumstances.

The Inspector considered that the appeal scheme would result in a substantial adverse impact in the short, medium and long term in respect of a number of viewpoints. The first of these viewpoints is of particular significance, as it relates to an important approach into the village. As such, he concluded that the area’s character and appearance would be unacceptably harmed, to the detriment of the natural beauty of the AONB.

Nature Conservation

The appeal site lies within 700m of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths. EDA has already drawn attention to the fact that these sites are so special that EDDC has a legal duty to ensure no adverse effects occur from increased recreational demand as a result of new developments.
http://eastdevonalliance.org/2014/05/08/the-pebblebed-heath-who-cares/

Natural England continued to object to the proposal on the grounds of uncertainty about the likely delivery of a mechanism to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of these sites.

EDDC, however, claimed that progress had been made in one important mitigation strategy: the identification of suitable alternative natural greenspaces for public access. EDDC claimed that specific sites had now been identified and a delivery officer would be appointed. Provision for a contribution to the estimated £20M total cost of mitigation [something akin to a 106 agreement] had also been agreed by the developer. [In EDA’s report referenced above we pointed out that in 2013 EDDC had granted planning permission on a site previously identified as a suitable alternative greenspace – so when are we going to be told where these sites are?].

Overall Conclusion

The appeal scheme represents a major development in an AONB and within the NPPF planning permission should therefore be refused except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that the scheme is in the public interest. The Inspector noted the development’s contributions to meeting general and affordable housing needs would represent positive benefits. However, the AONB does not extend over the whole of East Devon District and, as such, there are likely to be opportunities to meet District-wide needs in locations that do not adversely affect the AONB.

A strategy broadly along these lines is proposed in the replacement Local Plan (the New East Devon Local Plan), which has recently been subject to examination. However, given the interim findings of the [Local Plan] Inspector, little weight can be attached to the housing targets contained in that document. Furthermore, concerns were raised by the [Local Plan] Inspector regarding the Council’s assessment of the ability of small towns and villages to accommodate growth.

Nevertheless, bearing in mind, first, that it is an underlying principle of the NPPF that patterns of growth should be actively managed to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable and, second, that the NPPF attaches great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, the Inspector considered that his conclusions on the two main issues in this appeal were sufficient to overcome the advantages that would result in respect of the provision of general and affordable housing. The exceptional circumstances that are required by the NPPF for granting permission within an AONB have not therefore been demonstrated.

This is an all too rare example of AONB protection being upheld.

Footnote

Along the line EDDC, in defending its decision to refuse permission for Badger Close, had argued that Newton Poppleford lacks employment opportunities, giving rise to the necessity to commute to work. It considered that the village should only accommodate a limited scale of development, as defined by its built-up area boundary, on economic sustainability grounds.

Previously, in recommending granting outline planning permission to Clinton Devon Estates for the King Alfred Way development, which involves a similar number of houses, EDDC had argued differently. In this case EDDC noted the potential for new jobs to be created, both through construction work and through the increased numbers of residents in Newton Poppleford supporting local businesses! [At this point EDA feel it appropriate to point out that this argument could be used to claim all developments of this scale were economically sustainable].