Appeal 3272138

The appeal is dismissed.

The application is in outline format with only the access to the site to be considered at this stage along with the principle of the development proposed. I have therefore regarded the proposed layout plans and house designs as for illustrative purposes only.

The main issues are whether the proposed development of four houses accords with the strategy set out in the development plan, and the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a grassed paddock/field with some dilapidated single storey buildings which front a private unmetalled track with access from the A338. The cul-de-sac track which is also a public right of way (PROW), provides access to about 8 properties.

It is proposed in outline to develop four dwellings and to construct two passing places to the side of the track, part of which is included within the red line of the application site. Moreover, since the application was decided by the Council I note that the Council has placed Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) on two oak trees at the side of the track in the vicinity of the passing places.

I also note that planning permission was granted under ref. P15/V0459/FUL for the erection of 2 dwellings on the appeal site. There is informal confirmation from the Council that conditions on this scheme were discharged and that works undertaken to form the new access were sufficient to constitute the commencement of the development. The appellant regards this as a fallback position and says this development will be completed if the current appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s Local Plan 2031 Part 1 was adopted in 2016 and Part 2 [name] and Policies adopted in 2019. Within the Local Plan and the overall spatial strategy there is a defined settlement hierarchy for the district where Frilford is regarded as a ‘smaller village’. Here, Core Policy 4 indicates that limited ‘infill’ development may be appropriate within the built up area of the settlement, subject to specific criteria, or other circumstances not relevant to this appeal. However, in open countryside beyond a village the policy indicates that other development will not normally be appropriate.

The small hamlet of houses along [address] lies outside the established settlement boundary of Frilford which lies to the west of the A338. The very limited development to the east of the main road is small in scale and generally dispersed and has a predominately rural character. I have taken account of the 6 new houses which appear to have been built recently at [name], generally to the north of the appeal site, and the likelihood of two large houses on the appeal site itself. Nevertheless, it appeared to me at the visit that the dispersed and fragmented nature of the limited development north of [address] and east of the main road, does not have the overall character or appearance of a built-up area of the village and should be regarded as countryside. On this basis, further ‘infilling’ is not appropriate and the principle of the proposed development conflicts with Core Policy 4 and the spatial strategy set out in Core Policy 3.

The Council says that the two houses allowed on the appeal site were granted when the Council could not demonstrate an adequate 5 year supply of land for new housing. This no longer appears to be the case and so the current appeal is considered in different circumstances in accordance with paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as opposed to paragraph 11(d).

Regarding the appeal site itself, the present dilapidated buildings spoil the appearance of the area, however this harm is relatively limited in extent because of landscaping around the site. Nevertheless, I recognise that there would be a positive benefit locally if these buildings were demolished.

The existing properties along [address] have a variety of designs and forms with some stone cottages fronting the lane while others are larger properties in their own more extensive grounds, as well as the large open field to the south of the lane. As such the overall character of the lane is rural, mainly spacious and verdant.

The appeal proposal for 4 dwellings on the site in principle would be unlikely to result in a similar form of development and spaciousness. The submitted plans are for illustrative purposes only but there is no other spatial evidence before me to show how this scale of development could be accommodated on the site. The four dwellings illustrated have a symmetrical layout resulting in a suburban form with development in depth. Moreover, the access to the site and the parking provision for vehicles at the frontage would visually dominate the space viewed from the lane and the public footpath. PROW. These factors show an inappropriate form of development.

Core Strategy Policy 23 advocates a minimum density of new housing developments of 30dph and the appellant says that the proposed scheme would increase the density from that already permitted from 8 to 16dph. However, the caveat within the policy is not to have such density where the local circumstances indicate that this would have an adverse effect on the character of the area, highway safety or the amenity neighbours.

Overall on this issue I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the development of the site with 4 dwellings could be undertaken in a manner which responds positively to and integrates with its surroundings and as such the proposal would conflict with the requirements of Core Policy 37.

Local residents also raise objection to the proposal on other grounds. Some advise that as the track is private consent will not be given for greater use of it caused by the proposal, however, this is a private matter for the parties involved.

In terms of general highway matters I note that there is no explicit objection from the highway authority to the development, other than concerns about the effect on the PROW. Residents have commissioned an independent Transport Assessment (HVJ Transport Ltd). On all of the evidence submitted including the appellant’s Transport Assessment (Glanville) it appears to me that there is not a clear highway objection to the additional traffic movements that are likely to be generated by two additional properties on the lane itself or the junction with the A338. However, I have concerns that the two passing places put forward would materially change and harm the rural appearance of the lane and urbanise it even if the spaces could be formed without harming protected trees. This adds to the harmful effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area that I have identified.

On the main issues I have found that, taking account of the development on the site already started, the proposal would not accord with the strategy in the development plan as the site off [address] does not form part of the built up area of the settlement of Frilford. The additional houses proposed are therefore not an acceptable form of ‘infilling’. Moreover, it has not been demonstrated that four dwellings can be accommodated on site in an acceptable manner that would integrate well with the surroundings of the site. Even taking account of the design and scale of the properties in the fallback scheme, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and conflict with the polices in the development plan that I have identified. I also have concerns about the visual impact of the proposed passing paces on the simple rural character of the lane.

These factors have to be balanced with the benefits of the proposal. The proposal would make more efficient use of land which is encouraged in Core Policy 23 and section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and there would be some limited highway benefits with the proposal. The appellant also stresses that the proposed layout and design would deliver benefits compared to the permitted scheme in the fallback position.

However, I find that these benefits are limited in the context of the site. These considerations do not outweigh the local harm that I have identified or the conflict with the development plan when this is read as a whole. This indicates that the appeal should not be allowed.

However, I find that these benefits are limited in the context of the site and do not outweigh the local harm that I have identified or the conflict with the development plan when this is read as a whole. This indicates that the appeal should not be allowed.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.