“12.595. The parish of Kentisbury has a dispersed settlement pattern with several small settlements including Kentisbury Town, Kentisbury Ford and Patchole. Kentisbury is located on the southern fringes of Exmoor National Park to the north of the A39 between Barnstaple and Lynton and to the south of the A399 between Aller Cross and Combe Martin, …… …… 12.597 Services in Kentisbury are limited to a primary school, village hall, post office and petrol filling station. A wider range of services and facilities are available in Barnstaple, Ilfracombe or Combe Martin but there are limited public transport services through the village to facilitate easy access.”
“A key factor for the appeal refusal for the Land Adjacent to The Stables in Patchole, Kentisbury was primarily due to the inspector’s interpretation of DM23 and what is considered principle-built [sic] form. The term itself is down to the decision maker by justification of policy and material considerations, however there is no definition setting out the meaning of the term, thus lacking in clarity. The appeal site was not considered to be part of the principle-built [sic] form by virtue that it is sited on a private lane away from Ley Lane and is not fronting the road like the majority of the settlement.”
“From my own recollection, both I and the Planning Officers viewed that proposal as out of scale with the settlement of Patchole (being 3 open market dwellings) and the site had no frontage. This view was confirmed in the subsequent appeal decision and the appeal dismissed ….. I do not recall Policy DM23 being a significant part of the considerations as those other elements were the main conflicts.”
“I advised her that procedurally, she may wish to attend a Parish Council meeting to explain to those Parish Council members that an application for planning permission was being prepared. This was in line with the Planning Code of Conduct in place at the time ie that Councillors should restrict themselves to giving advice about the process and what can and can’t be taken into account.”
“12. I also recall that she called me to let me know that the application was made or was about to be made. That was all we discussed. I did not make any promises or indications about the application that they were about to make. 13. Besides those telephone calls I had no other contact with [JCG] regarding this planning application once it was submitted. Nor did I discuss it before it was determined by the Defendant’s Planning Committee.”
“The proposal, submitted here in outline, comprises one family home. It is within the principal-built form and thus comply [sic] with criteria (1)(a) of Policy DM23, as reinforced by Appeal Decision …. 3288689 [i.e. the decision on the Stables Application].”
“The detailed points for opposing this application are well made by several of the objectors and for the purposes of the avoidance of establishing precedent, should be taken good note of. This is particularly true in respect of the interpretation of policy DM23. To date planners seem to have taken a very loose interpretation – to the point of absurdity in one recent planning application – of the definition of ‘Principal Built Form’ of a settlement and where the boundaries of that lie. By definition, as pointed out, a new application cannot be within the principal built form of a settlement if it is on the edge of it and therefore outside it. That would mean that the provisions of DM23(b) must apply and that is precisely the interpretation you yourselves reached on a previous application for this site. The simple fact is that there has to be an even playing field. You cannot make certain stipulations for one application and then, when a second application is received for the same site, disregard them and apply a different set of criteria. …….. I believe that where there are 6 objections or more then it is a requirement that the application will be referred to the Planning Committee. The Parish Council’s objection now makes 6. I am sure all objectors would be obliged for the relevant date in order to be able to attend and expand on their objections in person.”
“21. I believed there was a need to discuss this application within the policy context of DM23 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan, as both myself and the Parish Council were unclear about the application of this policy for the area of Patchole and the application of the principle of built form and how it related to Patchole. This was in line with the Planning Code of Conduct ie that the reasons for the call-in should refer solely to matters of material planning concern.”
“It is the opinion of Officers that the built form of the village in this location ends at the eastern boundary of Lower Basepark and therefore the proposal should be considered on the basis that it is “well-related to the main built form of the settlement.”
“The application site is not within the built form of the existing settlement of Patchole. The proposed development for the provision of one open-market dwelling will not meet an identifiable need for the provision for affordable housing focused development. The Local Planning Authority considers that the harm caused in not creating housing to meet the local need will result in an unsustainable form of development. The proposal is thereby contrary to policies ST01, ST19 and DM23 of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan.”
“…… having carried out a site inspection, the Committee finds that the proposal for an open market dwelling in this location is acceptable by its accordance with policy DM23(1)(a) of the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan and with reference to the following material considerations: (a) Planning Inspectorate Appeal 2022 reference APPX1118W2132288689 states, the principal built form is clustered around the junction between Ley Lane and Ford Hill/Stonecombe Hill, with properties primarily fronting these roads, and the Committee viewed the triangulation of the two storey dwelling to the north-east, a property known as Roseley. (b) That Officers’ significant weighting of the previous planning decision 66536 on the site is given less weight due to the findings of what a principal built form can consist of, as referenced in Planning Inspectorate Appeal 22 reference APPX1118W213288689.”
“Whilst policies ST19 and DM23 are now out-of-date resulting from the short-fall in the 5YHLS, the principal reasoning behind the policies are for sustaining the long term viability of Local Centres, Villages and Rural Settlements remains as: ‘Ensuring housing needs are addressed locally is an essential component in delivering a long-term future for communities across northern Devon. The Local Plan seeks to ensure that housing needs can be appropriately realised to support the creation of sustainable communities, providing housing in response to locally generated social needs’ [paragraph 7.38]. With regard to the above, Officers retain the position that sites that are adjacent to the principal built-form of settlements should continue to support the sustainability and future viability of such settlements. The retention of such sites for affordable housing led development is therefore given significant weight in the determination of this application.”
“From an economic perspective, the construction of one dwelling and the introduction of additional residents to the village and District is likely to contribute to the local economy. However, Officers consider that insufficient information has been presented to allow for a detailed and informed judgement on the precise value of economic gain ….”
“Thank you, Chair. So as I understand it, the reasons are: The Committee takes into account the external legal advice and the Officer's report. We are now looking at this application in a different way than the previous Committee did in November 2024, as we have new mandatory housing targets and therefore we recognise the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. In December 2024, the Government updated the National Planning Policy Framework and as a result a material consideration is that the tilted balance is engaged in accordance with paragraph 11(d)(2) of the National Planning Policy Framework because the policies in terms of housing supply are considered to be out of date, tilting the balance between benefits and harm. The application is in accordance with policy ST01, as Patchole and Kentisbury are in the Local Plan as a village which has an aspiration of community growth. Therefore, it is a sustainable development of an open market dwelling which tilts the balance in favour of approval. As a result of the above, the Committee affords less weight to the environmental and social perspective in ST01 as well as policies ST19 and DM23. The Committee gives increased weight in producing another property for the vitality of the village. Therefore, the Committee does consider the benefits significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm when assessed against the policies within the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole. Thank you, Chair.”
“Policy ST01: Principles of Sustainable Development (1) When considering development proposals the Councils will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. The Councils will always work proactively with applicants and local communities to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. (2) Planning applications that accord with the policies in this Local Plan (and where relevant with policies in Neighbourhood Plans) will be approved unless material considerations indicate otherwise. (3) Where there are no policies relevant to an application, or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision, then the Councils will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise, taking into account whether: (a) any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or (b) specific policies in that Framework or guidance in the National Planning Practice Guidance indicate that development should be restricted.” “Policy DM23: Residential Development in defined Settlements without development boundaries (1) Residential development in Local Centres and Villages without development boundaries will be supported on allocated sites and where: (a) the site is located within the principal built form of the settlement and is not protected for any other use; or (b) the site is well related to the main built form of the settlement and provides an affordable housing focused development in accordance with Policy ST19. […]” “Policy ST19: Affordable Housing on Exception Sites Proposals to deliver permanent affordable housing at Local Centres, Villages and Rural Settlements will be supported, subject to the following: (a) the site is well related to or adjoining the defined development boundary; or where the settlement is not subject to a development boundary, the site is well related to the extent of the contiguous built form; (b) the development is proportionate to the scale and nature of the existing settlement; (c) there is an identified local need for affordable housing sufficient to justify the extent and nature of the proposed development; (d) the housing need could not reasonably be satisfied without the exceptional release of land; (e) arrangements are in place to ensure that the affordable housing, remains available to the local community in perpetuity; (f) where it can be robustly demonstrated that an element of market housing is required to enable delivery of significant additional affordable housing, it will be supported provided that: (i) the element of market housing is the minimum amount required to enable the delivery of the proposed affordable housing; and (ii) the mix of open market dwellings, in terms of type and size, complies with the requirements of Policy ST17; (g) environmental and heritage assets are not subject to significant harm, are conserved or enhanced, with particular respect to the setting and special qualities of nationally important landscapes, biodiversity and heritage designations and the undeveloped coast; and (h) the use of planning conditions, obligations or other legally defensible limitations to: (i) restrict occupation to households identified as being in need of affordable housing; and (ii) give priority of occupation to households with a local connection.” “Policy KKF: Kentisbury / Kentisbury Ford Spatial Strategy The local community has a vision for the community that seeks to maintain the area’s character and appearance for the benefit of residents, while adopting a positive approach to development well related to the village that addresses local needs. The surrounding high quality landscape along the approaches to Exmoor, the natural and built environment, local community and its facilities are particularly valued and should be protected. The spatial strategy will be delivered through: (a) provision of a minimum of 6 new dwellings to meet a range of housing needs in the local community. The supply of housing will be delivered through extant planning permissions, with no new sites allocated for housing; (b) support for additional employment provision to meet locally generated requirements; (c) retention and enhancement of the character of the villages, their relationship with the surrounding countryside and protection of the high quality local environment including the setting of listed buildings; (d) delivery of superfast broadband connections; (e) support for appropriate renewable energy schemes; and (f) support for maintaining and developing village services and facilities.” (a) any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or (b) specific policies in that Framework or guidance in the National Planning Practice Guidance indicate that development should be restricted.” (a) the site is located within the principal built form of the settlement and is not protected for any other use; or (b) the site is well related to the main built form of the settlement and provides an affordable housing focused development in accordance with Policy ST19. […]” (i) the element of market housing is the minimum amount required to enable the delivery of the proposed affordable housing; and (ii) the mix of open market dwellings, in terms of type and size, complies with the requirements of Policy ST17; (i) restrict occupation to households identified as being in need of affordable housing; and (ii) give priority of occupation to households with a local connection.” (a) provision of a minimum of 6 new dwellings to meet a range of housing needs in the local community. The supply of housing will be delivered through extant planning permissions, with no new sites allocated for housing; (b) support for additional employment provision to meet locally generated requirements; (c) retention and enhancement of the character of the villages, their relationship with the surrounding countryside and protection of the high quality local environment including the setting of listed buildings; (d) delivery of superfast broadband connections; (e) support for appropriate renewable energy schemes; and (f) support for maintaining and developing village services and facilities.”
“12.604 Opportunities for residential development in Kentisbury are limited. At31st March 2017 there was a relatively modest level of housing commitments in Kentisbury parish. There are no sites allocated for housing development in the village as the Parish Council wish to consider all future housing proposals on their own merits. The requirement to provide additional housing to meet local needs and demands still remains, as does addressing aspirations for improvements to local services and facilities. 12.605 Residential development proposals which are appropriate in terms of scale, location and landscape impact, it will be considered for residential development in accordance with Policy DM23: Residential Development in defined Settlements without Development Boundaries, and other relevant policies of the Local Plan. Other opportunities to secure additional housing to meet local needs will continue to be explored.”
“The presumption in favour of sustainable development 11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable Development ……… For decision-taking this means: c) …….. d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination. 12. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making. Where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted. Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed.”
“The policies themselves were perfectly clear. The judge's conclusion to that effect was right. As he recognized, the fact that the polices were expressed in permissive terms does not exclude the obvious corollary that proposals without their explicit support were not in accordance with them or with the plan's comprehensive strategy for housing development. As he also recognized, however, this necessary inference is only reinforced by the policy objectives and the supporting text, which emphasized the city council's intention to steer housing development to the existing urban areas and previously developed land and away from undeveloped sites in the countryside. The inference, therefore, is not neutral or positive towards development without specific support in the policies, but negative.”
“The significance of that fact is not simply that it will often leave the reasoning obscure. In addition, the fact that the committee is disagreeing with a careful and clear recommendation from a highly experienced officer on a matter of such potential significance to very many people suggests that some explanation is required … the dictates of good administration and the need for transparency are particularly strong here, and they reinforce the justification for imposing the common law duty.”
“35. A “broad summary” of the relevant authorities governing reasons challenges was given by Lord Brown of Eaton-under Heywood in South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No 2)[2004] 1 WLR 1953 , para 36: “The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the ‘principal important controversial issues’, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.” 36. In the course of his review of the authorities he had referred with approval to the “felicitous” observation of Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment(1993) 66 P&CR 263 , 271-272: “… whether the decision of the Secretary of State leaves room for genuine as opposed to forensic doubt as to what he has decided and why. This is an issue to be resolved as the parties agree on a straightforward down-to-earth reading of [the decision] without excessive legalism or exegetical sophistication.”” “The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the ‘principal important controversial issues’, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.” “… whether the decision of the Secretary of State leaves room for genuine as opposed to forensic doubt as to what he has decided and why. This is an issue to be resolved as the parties agree on a straightforward down-to-earth reading of [the decision] without excessive legalism or exegetical sophistication.””
“18(4) More particularly [Policy KKF] expressly admits the grant of planning permission for new homes to meet an (undefined) range of housing needs provided (amongst other things) development is judged to retain and enhance the character of the village and the surrounding countryside and helps to support the village’s services and facilities (see sub-paragraphs (a), (c) and (f)).”
“…… A councillor may not vote upon a matter if, for example, they are biased or give an appearance of bias, or have a predetermined view, or have a pecuniary or other personal interest in the outcome: see, e g, R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex p Kirkstall Valley Campaign Ltd[1996] 3 All ER 304 , 321; Bovis Homes Ltd v New Forest District Council[2002] EWHC 483 (Admin) at [111]–[112]. These general disqualifying rules extend significantly beyond the specific statutory disqualifications from voting contained in primary legislation referred to in para 39 above. The legal consequence if a councillor does vote in the circumstances where the general rules apply (at any rate, where that has a material bearing on the outcome) is that the decision taken by the local authority is unlawful and liable to be set aside.”
“I recognise the number of councillors who voted the same way, but Councillor Drake was the Chairman, and, I infer influential, in her known views, perhaps more so with newly elected Committee members. The absence of any dissent itself surprised me, in view of the Inspector's recommendations, coupled with the absence of any officer recommendation supporting their rejection. I have also had regard to the participation of Councillor Harrison, whose pre-prepared resolution was accepted. On that ground alone the matter should be considered afresh by a properly constituted committee.”
“103. I consider next that the better view of the consequences of the participation of someone whose presence gave the appearance of bias, as with that of Councillor Drake at the September meeting, is that the decision is unlawful, rather than that the decision is lawful if there was a sufficient preponderance of unbiased participants for the effect of the apparently biased councillor's participation to have been eliminated or to be shown to have had no effect upon the actual decision. In so far as such a conclusion is to be drawn as to the effect of a councillor's participation, it becomes, in my judgment, a matter for the Court's discretion whether to grant relief. The question of lawfulness is not whether there was a real danger of bias looking at the body as a whole, but whether there was a real danger of bias from a participant in the decision. 104. I have not been referred to any direct authority on the point. Certainly where a participant in a judicial decision is automatically disqualified the whole decision was vitiated as in Pinochet No 2, notwithstanding the unanimous views of the other four participants. In my view that principle applies to decisions reached by a non-judicial body, one of whose members appears to be biased. Decisions of local authorities must be reached by properly constituted bodies. The participation of someone who should not have participated precludes the decision having been made as required by law and it is vitiated, subject only to the exercise of the court's discretion. There appears to be no justification for a distinction between the effect of the participation of those apparently biased and of those with a disqualifying pecuniary interest. The latter vitiates the decision (R v Hendon Rural District Council ex parte Chorley[1922] 2 KB 696 ), although De Smith 5th Ed page 541 refers to a divergence of opinion and also cites an earlier authority. Three biased members out of ten vitiated the decision in Hannan. In the Kirkstall Valley Campaign R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Kirkstall Valley Campaign Ltd[1996] 3 All ER 304 case Sedley J records, without expressly agreeing to it, though I consider implicitly doing so, an acceptance by Mr Drabble QC for the Secretary of State at page 328A: “The participation of a single member who is disqualified by bias vitiates the decision.” 105. It is some indication of the direction of the wind. It accords with my view.”
“Chairman, [pause] I, er the Officer's report does refer to ST19 and DM23 and I think it is important to note know that the advice that we've had is that those should have little weight or certainly less weight in the decision making balance and that's why the debate today is so different from the debate that we had before and that affects obviously the [pause] lack of 5 year land supply. So I think it is important, if Cllr Walker would agree, that we actually mention that we're putting less weight with ST19 and DM23 in line with the legal advice that we’ve had. Thank you, Chairman.”