Appeal 3262885

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a dwelling on land adjacent to 32 [name], Wimblington, Cambs [postcode] , in accordance with the application, [name]/YR20/0635/F, dated 1 July 2020, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for a partial award of costs has been made by the Council against the appellants. That application is the subject of a separate decision.

Since 2014, the appeal site has been the subject of three previous appeals, each being for the erection of a dwelling, garage and parking1. [name] have had regard to these decisions, I have determined the present appeal on its own merits, in the light of the evidence before me now.

From the submissions before me, I find that the main issues in the appeal are: ▪ whether in principle the appeal site is in an acceptable location for the proposed development, having regard to the Local Plan’s spatial strategy for the location of new development; ▪ whether the development would have adequate access to local services and facilities; ▪ and the development’s effects on the character and appearance of the area. 1 APP/D0515/A/13/2206869, APP/D0515/A/14/2218739, and APP/D0515/W/18/3201560

In the Fenland Local Plan (the FLP), adopted in May 2014, the District-wide spatial strategy is set out in Policy LP3. Wimblington is designated as one of the four [name], which form the second tier of the settlement hierarchy. At these villages, development and service provision are permissible, on a limited scale, either within the existing urban area or as small village extensions. Settlement boundaries are not defined, but are left to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The aims behind this spatial strategy are set out in Policy LP3 itself and the explanatory text. Firstly the strategy seeks sustainable growth, including new housing and job creation, with an emphasis on strengthening communities, and providing a framework for new investment. In addition, the strategy seeks to facilitate access to services and facilities, reducing the need to travel, and to protect the countryside.

In the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF), paragraph 77 gives general encouragement to housing developments that support the needs of rural areas. Paragraph 78 encourages housing to be located to enhance the vitality of rural communities. Opportunities should be taken for development in one village to support services in another nearby.

In the present case, the Council considers that [name] is not part of Wimblington, but rather that it is a separate settlement in its own right. However, the FLP is silent on the matter. Consequently, the status of [name] is a matter of judgement.

On my visit, I saw that [name] comprises, in the main, a linear grouping of about 50 or so dwellings, with a suburban, built-up character. Towards its western end, the houses are more loosely spaced, with large gardens, but nevertheless there is a recognisable continuity of residential development, stretching from [address] in the east, up to the A141, where Wimblington’s main built-up area starts. I appreciate that the A141 is, to some extent, a dividing feature, albeit a relatively recent one. But it is not unusual to find a major road within a built-up area, or for a settlement boundary to cross such a feature. In this case, given [name] contiguity with the remainder of Wimblington, and its evident functional relationship, it seems to me that [name] appears on the ground more as an outlying part of the larger village, rather than as a separate settlement.

I acknowledge that in two of the previous appeals relating to the site, the inspectors agreed that [name] fell under Policy LP3’s ‘elsewhere’ category, on the grounds that it is not identified in the FLP as a settlement. But in the present case, I find some merit in the counter-arguments put by the appellant, albeit briefly, based on the appearance of the area as seen on the ground, and the fact that what constitutes a settlement is not circumscribed by planning policy. Having considered those arguments, I agree that [name] does have the character of a settlement, but for the reasons that I have explained, I consider the most logical way to reconcile that finding with Policy LP3 is to treat it as part of Wimblington. To my mind, treating [name] in that way also gives proper effect to the aims of the relevant policies in both the FLP and NPPF that I have identified above.

In passing, I also note that a development of three detached houses in [name] has recently been granted permission by the Council. [name] have no further information as to the background to that proposal, on the face of it such a development would appear more consistent with Growth Village status rather than an ‘elsewhere’ location. This further reinforces my earlier

The present appeal proposal for one dwelling would involve limited development, in the form of a small extension to the existing built-up area. It would therefore comply with Policy LP3’s requirements for development at [name]. I therefore conclude that the principle of the scheme would not involve any conflict with the FLP’s spatial strategy or any other policies for the location of new housing.

Wimblington’s village school, doctors’ surgery, convenience shop/post office and The Anchor pub are calculated by the Council as between 1.2 km - 1.4 km from the appeal site. Walking times from the site are estimated at 15 – 17 minutes. The Parish Church is just beyond these. To my mind, distances of this kind are not unusual within most urban areas.

To walk or cycle from the appeal site, requires crossing the A141, which carries significant traffic flows, and where the speed limit is 50 mph. In addition, [name] itself has no street lighting, and no footway for a good part of its length. In neither of these respects would walking or cycling be suitable options for all possible users, or at all times of day, or all conditions.

But to my mind, that would be an unrealistic expectation, especially in a mainly rural District such as Fenland. The A141 crossing point, from [name] to [address], has a dedicated central refuge, safety bollards, road markings, lighting and good visibility, and there is no evidence of any adverse safety record. On my visit, I was able to see the crossing being used by some, without apparent difficulty or danger. [name], the terrain is flat, and traffic flows appear fairly light. Overall, this would not be an unduly difficult or hazardous route for those who wished to walk or cycle, in daylight hours and in reasonable weather. Consequently, having regard to the nature of the District, it seems to me that the choice of transport options at the appeal site would be appropriate for the type and scale of development now proposed.

Undoubtedly, the majority of journeys from the site would be made by car. But again, that is likely to be the case at many, if not most, housing sites in such a largely rural District. Car journeys into Wimblington would be very short. So too, relatively, would visits to other facilities in either the Market Town of March or the Growth Village of Doddington, both of which are within 2.5 - 3 miles. In this respect the appeal site is favourably located with regard to the aim of minimising car travel.

In this context, I note that NPPF paragraph 103 supports managing growth patterns to focus on sustainable locations, but also advises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural locations. This reinforces my view as stated above.

I also note that in relation to this issue, the Council refers to FLP Policy LP15, which is directed mainly at the delivery of new transport infrastructure. In the context of this appeal, Policy LP15 does not seem to me to add anything to the other FLP and NPPF policies that I have already identified elsewhere in this

Having regard to the previous appeals on this site, I note that in the most recent case the inspector concluded that the development would not be remote from village services, but would support rural communities, and would not undermine relevant policy aims with regard to minimising travel. My own conclusions are broadly similar. For the reasons already set out, I consider this approach to be more reflective of current policies now, at local and national levels, than that of the inspectors in either of the first two appeals.

I therefore conclude that the appeal site would be an acceptable location for the proposed development, from the point of view of its accessibility to local services and facilities. In this regard, I find no conflict with any relevant planning policies.

The appeal site lies on the edge of [name] built-up area, forming part of a narrow strip of overgrown land between the settlement itself and the arable farmland to the east. Residential development adjoins the site on two sides, and directly opposite is a cul-de-sac of modern detached houses known as Rhonda Park. The site boundaries are partly enclosed by hedges and trees. The site therefore has a close relationship to the built-up part of the village.

I acknowledge that some previous inspectors have found that the appeal site has an open character, and in this respect a different character from that of the adjoining built-up area. However, as became clear to me on my visit, the site is also quite different from the flat, open arable land beyond. That difference is evident not only in terms of its lack of any active use, but also its small size, narrow shape, steep slope, and well vegetated boundaries. I cannot tell to what degree its appearance may have changed over time, but looking at the site now, these are the aspects that seem to me the most salient. Consequently, notwithstanding the positive qualities that have been identified in past, the site appears, in my view, more closely related to the village than to the countryside. For the purposes of the present appeal, this to my mind is its most important characteristic.

The proposed new dwelling would have a single storey, low roof lines, and a simple rectangular footprint. The building shape would in some respects echo that of an agricultural building. The fenestration would be limited. The architectural style would be plain and unassertive. The building would be set on lower ground, below street level, and below the levels of the adjoining properties, or that of the bridleway on the site’s western boundary. Its front elevation would be set well behind the existing building line. No garage is now proposed. Given these aspects of its design and siting, it seems to me that the proposed dwelling would have little impact on public views, from either the street or the bridleway.

In all of the previous three appeals on the site, the schemes under consideration were for a significantly larger, 2-storey building, with an L-shaped floor plan, set further forward, and with an integral garage. In all these respects, the present scheme is clearly distinguishable from these previous proposals. Indeed, in every one of these aspects, its visual impact would be diminished compared to the schemes considered on those occasions. Consequently, the findings reached by those previous inspectors as to the effects of the building’s size or design, on the area’s character and appearance, are not directly relevant to the present appeal.

I note the Council’s professed concern that a single-storey building would be incongruous alongside the taller dwellings around it. But alternative designs have been rejected on grounds of visual impact, and the present proposal seems to me a logical and reasonable response to that issue. Other dwellings in the street have a variety of different heights and numbers of storeys. The present proposal would be smaller and lower than others around it, but there is no reason why that alone should amount to harm. The suggestion that it should now be taller is contradictory to the previous arguments. In the circumstances, the Council’s case on this ground seems ill-founded. I do not consider the single-storey nature of the design, or its lack of height, would be likely to be perceived by most observers as harmful.

In the light of the above, I find the design of the appeal proposal to be unobjectionable. No harm would therefore be caused to the area’s character or appearance. In this respect there would be no material conflict with any relevant planning policies, including Policy LP16 of the FLP, or Policy DM3 of the Council’s supplementary guidance on delivering and protecting high quality environments, adopted in 2014.

If permission is granted, a condition relating to possible ground contamination is necessary to protect human health. Conditions relating to floor levels and future extensions are needed, to ensure safety from flood risks. Control over materials is needed, to ensure a satisfactory appearance. The provision of the proposed parking and turning area needs to be secured, for reasons of highway safety. In addition, a condition requiring adherence to the approved plan is necessary to give certainty as to the nature of the development.

I note the Council’s other suggested conditions. However, there is no evidence that any further restrictions on permitted development rights are justified, either in the interests of visual amenity or for any other reason.

For the reasons explained above, I have found that the proposed development would satisfy the most relevant development plan policies, including [name] LP3 and LP16. No objections on grounds of conflict with any FLP policies have been substantiated. The scheme would therefore comply with the development plan as a whole.

The benefits of adding to the local housing stock and providing a stimulus to the local economy also weigh in favour. No other material considerations have been identified that weigh against.

Furthermore, for the avoidance of doubt, even if had come to the view that the development failed to comply with Policy LP3 for any reason, given the lack of any other harm, it seems to me that in the circumstances of this case the benefits that I have identified would have been sufficient to outweigh any conflict with that policy.

Having regard to NPPF paragraph 11, I conclude that the proposal constitutes sustainable development, which should be approved without delay.

I have taken account of all the other matters raised, but none alters these conclusions. The appeal is therefore allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan, No. PP2200, [name].

No development shall take place until the site has been investigated for soil contamination, and any such contamination found to be present has been removed or rendered harmless, in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. In addition: i) If, during the course of construction, any contamination is found which has not been identified previously, no further work shall take place until that contamination has been removed or rendered harmless, in accordance with additional measures to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and ii) If any contamination has been found to be present at any stage, either before or during construction, no part of the proposed development shall be brought into use until a verification report has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, showing that all such contamination has been treated, and the site rendered safe for occupation, in accordance with the original contamination scheme and any further measures subsequently agreed.

The floor level of the new dwelling shall be set at 1.10m above [name]. Thereafter, the building shall not be occupied until flood resilience measures, to a minimum of 300mm above this floor level, have been incorporated, in accordance with details to be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing.

No construction work above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used on the external wall and roof surfaces of the proposed dwelling have been submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out using the materials thus approved.

The proposed new dwelling shall not be occupied or brought into use until the proposed car parking and turning area has been laid out and made available for use in connection with the proposed dwelling. Thereafter, the said parking and turning facilities shall be retained and kept available for these purposes.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no extensions shall be erected on the southern or eastern sides of the building, other than in accordance with any further planning permission expressly granted for such development. [END OF SCHEDULE]