The East Devon holiday home appeal at Cosy Cow Shed, Dalwood, has been allowed despite the Inspector finding that unrestricted occupation would conflict with East Devon’s spatial and transport policies.
Inspector S Sharp allowed appeal 6009619 on 29th September 2026. The existing dwellinghouse was restricted to use for holiday accommodation, but the permission now allows unrestricted residential occupation.
The decisive point was the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework. Sharp found that the property was previously developed land within Policy S5, while the extra permanent-residential journeys were not significant enough to trigger refusal under the relevant national decision-making policies.
Why the East Devon holiday home was constrained by location
The property is clearly separated from the built-up envelope of Dalwood. That mattered twice: first under East Devon’s settlement strategy, and again when the Inspector decided whether the proposal fell under NPPF Policy S4 for development within settlements or S5 for development outside them.
Sharp found S5 was the correct policy. The site was outside a settlement, so the stronger S4 route for development within settlements did not apply.
The local policies still mattered. East Devon Local Plan Strategies 1, 7 and 27 seek to direct unrestricted housing in accordance with the settlement hierarchy, while Strategies S3, 5B and TC2 address sustainable travel, carbon reduction and the need to reduce reliance on the private car.
The Inspector found conflict with those policies. That conclusion remained in place all the way through the decision.
The Inspector walked the route to Dalwood
The East Devon holiday home decision is unusually useful because Sharp did not assess accessibility only from a plan. The Inspector walked between Cosy Cow Shed and Dalwood and recorded what that journey was actually like.
Dalwood provides a pub, village hall, church, shop and cafe. The walk took around seven minutes in each direction.
But the route was not straightforward in all conditions. Roads were unlit, there were no segregated footways, and the return journey involved a moderately steep uphill section with no resting places.
Sharp considered the walk suitable in clement weather and daylight. The Inspector also recognised that holiday occupiers would already make journeys to shops, attractions and other destinations, often by car.
The point was therefore not that the holiday use generated no traffic. It was that unrestricted occupation would change the pattern and purpose of journeys.
Permanent occupation meant different journeys
Sharp expected permanent residents to make trips that holiday visitors would not routinely make, particularly for employment, education and medical appointments.
There would also be occasions when residents were more likely to drive because of darkness or poor weather, while destinations such as Axminster and places further afield would often require car travel.
The Inspector concluded that the number of car journeys and associated carbon emissions would be materially greater than under the holiday use, although the increase was “not significant in scale overall”.
That distinction became central to the East Devon holiday home appeal. It was enough to produce development-plan conflict, but not enough to amount to the sort of significant movement that engaged the tougher national transport test in the way East Devon’s case required.
Local-plan conflict did not disappear
This is the part of the appeal that makes it worth reading carefully. The new NPPF did not wipe away the development plan.
For the East Devon holiday home, Sharp expressly concluded that the proposal conflicted with the development plan taken as a whole. The expected increase in car trips and carbon emissions was material to that conclusion.
The development plan remained the statutory starting point. What changed was the weight and effect of national policy as a material consideration in this particular decision.
Policy S5 changed the route outside settlements
Policy S5 is the August 2026 Framework’s main decision-making policy for development outside settlements. Our guide to building outside a settlement boundary explains the wider structure.
Its first part identifies categories of development which should be approved outside settlements unless the benefits are substantially outweighed by adverse effects assessed against the national decision-making policies.
One of those categories, S5(1)(d), is redevelopment of previously developed land. Crucially for this appeal, the wording expressly includes a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential.
That did not create an automatic permission. The Inspector still had to decide whether Cosy Cow Shed qualified, consider the relevant national policies, assess harm and then carry out the S5 balance.
S5(2) then identifies circumstances in which adverse effects are likely to substantially outweigh benefits, including failure to comply with a national decision-making policy that says development should be refused in specific circumstances.
S5(3) directs isolated homes to Policy HO11, while S5(4) provides a separate exceptional-circumstances route for proposals outside the categories in S5(1). S5(5) takes Green Belt and Local Green Space outside this S5 route. None altered the route here: Cosy Cow Shed formed part of a group of houses and was neither Green Belt nor Local Green Space.
Previously developed land was key
For the East Devon holiday home, Sharp found that the appeal property fell within the Framework definition of previously developed land.
That finding is important because Policy S5(1)(d) is not a general route for every building, field or holiday property in the countryside. The land first has to satisfy the Framework definition, including its exclusions.
Here there was an existing lawfully developed dwellinghouse whose occupation was restricted to holiday accommodation. The proposal was a change to unrestricted residential occupation, not the construction of a new home on undeveloped countryside.
The Inspector therefore treated the proposal as the redevelopment of previously developed land for the purposes of S5, including the material change of use to residential expressly referred to by the policy.
The national refusal triggers were not engaged
Policy S5 also directs attention to national decision-making policies that state development should be refused in specified circumstances.
For the East Devon holiday home, Sharp considered the potentially relevant refusal provisions in policies L3, DP3, TR6, F6, F7, N2, N6 and HE6. On the evidence before the appeal, none required refusal. The Inspector recorded “no conflict with the relevant NDMPs”.
Climate and transport policy still needed separate consideration. Policy CC2 points decision-makers towards the sustainable movement policies, including TR3 and TR4.
TR3 applies where development would generate a significant amount of movement in the context of the area. Such development should support sustainable transport, limit private car reliance and provide genuine choice between modes unless that is impractical because of the development’s nature.
One dwelling was not significant movement under TR3
Sharp found that the change involving one dwelling would not generate a significant amount of movement in absolute terms.
The Inspector also considered it insignificant in relative terms, taking account of the other homes along the road and the road’s role linking Dalwood with the A35.
That finding mattered. The location made genuine travel choice difficult, but the scale of movement meant the proposal did not conflict with TR3 in the way a materially larger trip-generating development might.
It is a useful reminder not to collapse two different questions into one. A proposal can increase car use enough to conflict with local spatial and transport policies without necessarily generating a significant amount of movement for the specific national TR3 test.
Housing benefit was modest but still positive
The appeal delivered only one unrestricted dwelling, so Sharp did not give the housing benefit exaggerated weight.
East Devon’s housing land supply was recorded at 3.5 years. Against that background, adding an unrestricted home was a benefit, but the Inspector gave it only minor positive weight because the numerical contribution was so small.
There was also no dispute that removing the holiday restriction would cause no harmful loss of tourist accommodation.
For the East Devon holiday home appeal, this was therefore not a decision driven by a huge housing benefit. Once the proposal qualified under S5 and did not breach a refusal-triggering national policy, the identified harms did not substantially outweigh the benefits.
River Axe SAC did not block unrestricted occupation
The site lies within the catchment of the River Axe Special Area of Conservation (SAC), so nutrient effects also had to be considered.
The existing East Devon holiday home could already be occupied throughout the year. Sharp found that unrestricted residential occupation would not increase the intensity or extent of occupation in a way that would increase nutrient loading.
The Inspector therefore found no likely significant effect on the River Axe SAC and no need for an appropriate assessment. Our Habitats Regulations Assessment guide explains that process more generally.
The appeal property is also within the Blackdown Hills National Landscape. Sharp recorded the need to further the statutory purposes of the protected landscape, including conserving and enhancing its natural beauty and special qualities. That designation did not alter the outcome of this appeal.
The proposal also fell within the small-sites exemption from mandatory biodiversity net gain.
Why the new NPPF outweighed the development-plan conflict
The final balance is what makes appeal 6009619 particularly significant.
Sharp found a real development-plan conflict. Permanent residents would probably make additional car-borne trips and create more carbon emissions than holiday occupiers. The property was outside a settlement and the council’s spatial strategy pointed away from unrestricted housing there.
But the appeal property was previously developed land, the proposal fell within S5(1)(d), and no relevant national decision-making policy requiring refusal was breached.
The adverse transport effects were real but limited. The contribution of one home was also limited, yet it remained a benefit in an authority with a 3.5-year housing land supply.
Sharp described the Framework as a “material consideration of critical importance in decision making”. The Inspector gave it sufficient weight to justify a decision contrary to the development plan and allowed the appeal.
That is the practical significance. The new Framework was not background policy cited in passing. It was the reason the planning balance moved.
What this decision does not mean
The East Devon holiday home decision should not be read as a general right to remove holiday-occupation restrictions.
A different property may not be previously developed land. It may engage a national policy that directs refusal. A larger scheme may generate significant movement. A site may be isolated, in the Green Belt or Local Green Space, or raise landscape, heritage, flood-risk, habitat or other constraints that alter the S5 assessment.
Nor does Policy S5 make countryside policies irrelevant. Sharp found development-plan conflict here and then identified a material consideration strong enough to justify a different outcome.
For owners of holiday accommodation and other existing rural buildings, the decision instead points to a disciplined sequence: establish the lawful use and restriction, decide whether the site is inside or outside a settlement, test the previously developed land definition, identify the correct S5 route, check every relevant national decision-making policy, and only then undertake the planning balance.
Planning Geek’s serviced accommodation guide, previously developed land guide, NPPF guide and planning appeals section cover the wider issues.
You can read the locally hosted appeal decision or check the Planning Inspectorate appeal record. The application reference was 25/1721/FUL.
0 Comments