Residential development appeal dismissed to prevent landscape harm

An Inspector has dismissed an appeal made by Baker Estates Ltd. against the decision of Torridge District Council to refuse an application for a proposed residential development of up to 36 dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure at Land at Wooda Road, Appledore, Devon.

We were instructed by a concerned resident as an Interested Party to oppose the Appeal at the hearing held on 22 July 2025.

The Inspector identified four key issues in this appeal:

• Whether the development complies with the development plan in terms of its scale and location;
• The effects of the proposal on the Undeveloped Coast
• The effects of the proposals on the landscape character and visual amenities of the area; and
• Whether adequate living conditions could be created for future occupiers, with particular regard to noise.

While the Inspector found conflicts with the proposal in relation to all four identified issues, the first was awarded only limited weight while the impacts on “the Undeveloped Coast, visual and landscape effects and noise considerations for future residents attract full weight”.

In preparing representations on behalf of our client, we instructed Peter Radmall on landscape harm and Geoff Moxon, Bioscan on ecological impacts. In this case representations made by the latter although acknowledged were not determinative in this instance.

In terms of landscape harm, the Inspector accepted evidence provided by Mr Radmall in the form of accurate visual representations and photomontages noting the characteristics of the existing site as including “undeveloped skylines; open views and a mixed composition of pasture, woodland and settlement”. In reviewing the evidence, the Inspector determined that “the proposal would cause adverse harm, which in the instances of landscape character and visual effects on local PROWs in particular, would be of substantially adverse magnitude of effect” As such, the development was found to be contrary to Local Plan Policies ST14, DM08A and NOR which seek to ensure that development conserves and enhances local distinctiveness and respects landscape character of both designated and undesignated landscapes and seascapes. The Inspector also noted that the development “would detract from the character and appearance of the Undeveloped Coast”.

On the other two reasons for refusal: Undeveloped Coast and Noise Environment, our client adopted the position of the Council which was upheld by the Inspector in their decision as follows:

“In the absence of robust evidence to justify such, the proposal would detract from the Undeveloped Coast landscape resource in conflict with [Local Plan] Policy ST09 (7) [which supports development where it cannot reasonably be located outside the Undeveloped Coast]”

And

“In the absence of robust evidence qualifying that even the existing noise environment would be suitable for new residents of the appeal site, the proposal is contrary to, in particular, Policies DM01 and DM04 of the [Local Plan] which seek to ensure that the intended occupants of the proposed development would not be harmed as a result of existing uses.”

Andrew Parkinson, Landmark Chambers was instructed as Counsel.