Appeal 6000439

The appeal is allowed and Permission in Principle is granted for the construction of nine (9) dwellings at Land off [site address] and [address], [site address] , Worcester [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00843/PIP.

The proposal is for Permission in Principle. As such, the scope of the considerations at this stage is limited to location, land use and the amount of the proposed development. All other matters would be considered as part of any subsequent application for [name] (TDC). In this case, permission is sought for nine dwellings, and I have determined the appeal on this basis. Although plans of a possible layout and access have been provided, I have treated these as being only illustrative.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal and its location, land use and amount on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of Christ Church1 (the Church), a [name] listed building, and having regard to the Development Plan strategy for housing in the countryside.

The site lies at the junction of [site address] and [address], and consists of countryside used as paddocks, together with equestrian buildings at the entrance. [address] (the B4204), has a row of dwellings and buildings opposite and close to the site, including the [name]. These form the edge of the main built-up part of the village. [site address] consists of a rural road within countryside. However, it has some sporadic development including, I understand, recent approvals of additional dwellings. 1 I have adopted the spelling of the parties, although it is also spelt ‘Christchurch’.

The Church is located at the junction of the B4204 and [address]. It dates from 1903-4 and has a range of architectural and ecclesiastical features. Relevant to this appeal, its significance is its attractive, historic appearance and rural setting, and its importance as a landmark and focal point. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that I have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building and its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest.

The site is largely green and open. The form and scale of the proposal do not fall for consideration at this stage. Nevertheless, being for nine dwellings, it would inherently result in significant additional built form. It would involve additional lighting, changed access arrangements, and the domestic paraphernalia associated with residential use, such as outbuildings and parked cars.

Consequently, in consolidating existing development hereabouts, the proposal would somewhat undermine the broadly agricultural, semi-rural character of the area. It would thus not reflect the [name] landscape type of the Worcestershire County Council Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), and its key characteristics, which include existing field patterns, hedgerow boundaries and dispersed development. The adverse effects of the proposal would be visible from both [site address] and [address], and in longer distance views, such as from the Church and its surroundings.

Nevertheless, the adverse effects of the proposal on the landscape would be tempered by the presence of some buildings hereabouts, on the appeal site itself and on adjacent roads. It may well be possible to develop the site to avoid significant built form in the most prominent locations, such as at the junction between [site address] and [address], and instead to have green space here, for example, as suggested indicatively. Landscaping and additional vegetation on the site boundaries would also help to ameliorate the adverse effects of the proposal.

The development between the Church and the appeal site includes the reasonably substantial school buildings. The proposal would add additional development nearby. That said, the Church is already an imposing, tall building which is read in the context of a semi-rural, village location. This includes appreciable built development, such as the school, the Village Hall and houses in [address].

Open countryside adjacent to the B4204, immediately opposite the churchyard, would not be affected by the proposal, and the Church would retain its semi-rural surroundings. To the extent that the Church and its location provide a sense of arrival, as suggested by the Council, the proposal would not significantly diminish this or its significance as a village landmark and focal point. However, given my findings above, the proposal would cause some harm to the rural nature of the site and the surrounding area, thereby detracting to a small extent from the significance of the Church.

The first reason for refusal identifies conflict with policy SWDP2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (DP), adopted February 2016. To safeguard the open countryside, the policy strictly controls new development outside of any Development Boundary, as here, to certain types. None of these include the proposal, which is for open market housing. As such, it would also conflict with DP policy SWDP2.

Therefore, the proposal and its location, land use and amount would harm the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the listed building, as well as conflicting with the Development Plan strategy for housing in the countryside. Accordingly, it would not meet DP policies SWDP21 and SWDP25, which require local distinctiveness to be reinforced, and that proposals reflect the LCA. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes similar requirements, such as at paragraph 135.

The proposal would also conflict with DP policies SWDP6 and SWDP24, which seek to conserve and enhance heritage assets, their settings, and the historic environment. In the language of paragraph 215 of the Framework, the harm in respect of the setting of the Church would be less than substantial. Furthermore, for the reasons given above, the level of harm to the significance of the listed building would be at the lower end of the ‘less than substantial’ range. This harm should be weighed against public benefits, an exercise that I shall undertake below.

Despite new houses built recently, the Council accepts that it cannot currently demonstrate an adequate supply of housing land. It has a shortfall that is significantly below five years, with just 2.06 years of supply. At nine dwellings, the proposal would make an important contribution to the overall shortfall of housing in the District. Given the poor housing supply position, I give the supply benefits of the proposal substantial positive weight.

Future occupiers of the dwellings would make positive social and economic contributions. It would have other economic benefits, for example to local businesses and the building industry, and would make efficient use of the land. I give these factors additional moderate positive weight.

The harm identified to the listed building and its setting attracts considerable importance and weight, as required by the Act. In accordance with Framework paragraph 212, I give great weight to the harm to the setting of the designated heritage asset and its significance. Nevertheless, for the reasons given, the collective public benefits in favour of the proposal outweigh the harm that I have identified to the listed building and its setting. Consequently, the balance at Framework paragraph 215 is in favour of the proposal.

Framework paragraph 11 sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In this case, the Framework policies which protect assets of particular importance do not provide a strong reason for refusing the proposal. As such, footnote seven does not apply, and the presumption is engaged. It follows that I must determine whether the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits, to assist the Council in addressing its undersupply.

I have found conflict with the Development Plan policies set out above. For the reasons given, I give moderate negative weight to the harm to the character and appearance of the area and the conflict with DP policies SWDP21, SWDP25 and SWDP2. I have found that the adverse effects in respect of the Church and its setting, and therefore the conflict with DP policies SWDP6 and SWDP24, are outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.

Matters in respect of access, highway safety and visibility splays, flooding, drainage, pollution and biodiversity are for TDC stage, rather than being under consideration now. I have dealt with the appeal on the basis of its merits, rather than any other future proposal. The site has reasonable access to services and facilities in the village including the school, a shop and a public house, as well as bus services. As a result, these matters do not count against the proposal.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as outlined in paragraph 11 of the Framework.

I have found that the adverse impacts of granting Permission in Principle would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework read in the round. Given the weight I attach to the advantages of the development, as set out above, I find that the overall balance of considerations supports the proposal. Therefore, despite the conflict with the Development Plan, when read as a whole, material considerations indicate that Permission in Principle should be granted. Accordingly, I allow the appeal.