Appeal 6000588

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application was submitted in outline with approval sought for access only. The matters of layout, appearance, scale, and landscaping are reserved for later and I have determined the appeal on this basis. I have had regard to the indicative layout plan (drawing number CLRSF/A/04) but only as far as it is an illustrative indication of the proposed development.

As part of the appeal the appellant has submitted a revised indicative layout plan (drawing number CLRSF/A/21) and an [name] & [name] which seek to overcome the Council’s design concerns. The additional information represents a change to what was considered by the Council at the application stage. However, it was available to the Council at the appeal and they have provided comments on it.

Nevertheless, the description of development applied for, as set out in the application form, is for ten detached dwellings. The revised indicative proposals show a scheme that would not constitute such development and would materially change the nature of the proposal. I, therefore, have not considered the revised plans and Design & [name] as it would not comply with the description of development.

A Tree Protection, Retention & Removals Plan (drawing 2463-25-07 rev 01) has also been provided with the appeal and seeks to overcome the Council’s fourth reason for refusal. This information is also new but the Council has had an opportunity to comment on it. Consequently, having regard to the relevant caselaw, no party would be prejudiced if I were to take this information into account in my decision.

A signed [name] has been submitted with the appeal in respect of financial contributions towards open space, road safety, monitoring, and the provision of a footpath and cycle route. These are matters to which I will return.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst changes to the structure and wording are proposed, these could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The Council has referred to the Emerging Local Plan 2024-2045. However, it has also advised that this document is at an early stage. I cannot be certain when the plan is to be adopted and also whether any changes would be made before its adoption. I have, therefore, given very limited weight to the Emerging Local Plan.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the settlement strategy for the area and access to services and facilities; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposed development provides a suitable mix of housing; and • the effect of the development on trees.

The appeal site comprises existing buildings, hard surfacing and other equestrian structures and enclosures. The site is set back from [site address] and it, and the other houses in the immediate area, are surrounded by agricultural fields, paddocks, and woodland.

Policy DS1 of the Rugby Borough Council Local Plan 2011-2031 (the LP) sets the housing and employment needs for the Council area. It also requires all development to be sustainable and of high quality. Policy GP1 of the LP takes a positive approach to development that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy GP2 of the LP sets out the settlement hierarchy. The site lies outside any of the settlements identified within the LP. It, therefore, falls within land that, in planning terms, should be considered as countryside. Policy GP2 of the LP seeks to resist new development in the countryside except where national policy allows for development.

Both main parties agree that the existing buildings fall within the definition of previously developed land (PDL) as set out in the annex to the Framework. Although the Council contend that not all of the appeal site is PDL the definition in the Framework includes land which is, or was, occupied by a permanent structure and the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed). Only part of the appeal site contains built development. Nevertheless, the manèges, hard surfacing and the area to the rear of the stables are part of the commercial equestrian use. They are an integral part of the site and within the curtilage of the buildings. Therefore, and consistent with the findings of the Inspector in the Lavendon1 appeal, the whole of the appeal site falls within the definition of PDL.

The Framework encourages the use of PDL and also recognises that sites may be beyond existing settlements, in locations that are not well served by public transport. It also seeks to exploit opportunities to make a location more sustainable and includes improving access on foot. Nevertheless, the Framework, as a whole, promotes sustainable development.

[site address] , which is identified as a [name] in the LP, is approximately one mile away from the appeal site. [site address] has a section of unlit and narrow footpath near to the appeal site, but this does not extend all of the way into the village. It has a speed limit of 40mph and grass verges that are narrow and uneven. The village is within the maximum 2km preferred walking distance set out in Providing for Journeys on Foot (2003) and in Manual for Streets (2007). However, the walk along [site address] would be over 20 minutes and would not be a pleasant walk or one that would feel safe, especially at night or in the winter months. The walk along [site address] would be very different to the walk along the country lane noted in the Croft Farm2 appeal decision.

The proposal to provide electric bikes for the properties would be commendable but there would be no means to require ongoing provision of these, or any means to ensure that they are left with the property. Nevertheless, it would be possible to cycle along [site address] to access the services and facilities in the village and this would provide an opportunity for alternative means of travel. However, it is unlikely that this would significantly reduce the reliance on the private car and, due to the speed of the road and the distance to schools, cycling would not be a suitable means for children to access education.

The evidence before me indicates that, although there is a bus stop outside [name], the service from this stop is very limited and would limit the opportunities for the use of public buses to access the wider area. The information provided on the school bus routes does not confirm that the buses would pick up outside of the appeal site and suggests that children would need to be transported into the village to catch the bus. The IndieGo bus service and VASA community transport service would also provide access to bookable bus or car services, though this would not be an attractive option for those who have access to a private car, particularly for trips where predictable journey times are important including access to schools and work. Access to other bus stops within [site address] would require the occupants to walk into the village or to drive to the village to drop-off bus passengers.

The appellant proposes to upgrade an existing track, to provide a new footpath from the appeal development, to link to an existing public right of way which connects to the village. I walked the majority of the proposed route and accept that the walk would be more pleasant than walking along [site address] . Subject to appropriate surfacing it would also be possible to walk this route in the winter months and it would provide access to local services and facilities. 1 APP/Y0435/W/17/3178790 2 APP/P3420/W/19/3225154

A completed [name] (UU) has been provided by the appellant to require the details of the footpath to be submitted for approval, prior to commencement of the development, and to require it to be delivered and maintained for the lifetime of the development. The UU complies with the statutory tests and I am satisfied that the agreement would provide sufficient assurance in delivering this route. In that regard the appeal before me is materially different to the appeal at Magpie Farm3. Nevertheless, although the route would provide access to the village, as accepted by the Council Highway consultee, it would not substantially reduce the walking distance. Moreover, and notwithstanding the detail in the UU, given the rural location, it would not be appropriate to light this route and it would not, therefore, be used after dark.

The walking distance to the village and other public transport options would be such that future occupiers of the appeal proposal would use private modes of transport for a considerable portion of their day-to-day journeys, especially for access to work and education. Although working from home has increased in recent years this may not be possible for the future occupants of the appeal proposal. Furthermore, whilst I recognise that sites in rural areas are often not well served by public transport, and that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions would be more limited than in urban areas, the proposal would not help to support the goal of encouraging a shift to sustainable forms of travel.

The appellant contends that the appeal proposal would replace high-traffic commercial uses with lower traffic residential development and remove the large vehicle movements. Although the stables, equestrian events and farm shop could be brought back into use I have no compelling evidence that this would occur to the extent of the previous use and the appellant accepts that they have not been able to establish a viable use for the site. The proposed development would remove the trips generated by the previous uses. However, this would, in itself, not justify developing houses in a location that is not well connected to the services and facilities in the village. In this regard the appeal before me is materially different to the site at The Old Piggeries4. That decision indicates the removal of trips from the existing use was part of the balance of considerations alongside the short walk from services and facilities.

The submitted Travel Plan also suggests targets to reduce the use of the private car. However, although it promotes alternative means of travel it would not significantly reduce the reliance on the private car. Furthermore, there would still be large vehicles associated with deliveries and waste collection services for a residential development.

My attention has been drawn to a consent for the siting of holiday lodges on land behind the current appeal site which the appellant, and their legal advisor, contend indicate that the site is sustainably located. However, that consent was determined under different policies within the LP, including a policy which supports small-scale tourism and visitor accommodation in rural areas. Weight was also given to the type of accommodation being delivered not being the form of accommodation that would be delivered within urban areas and to the presence of the farm shop at [name]. The occupants of holiday accommodation would have different needs than those of permanent dwellings. Although they may seek to access 3 APP/E3715/W/21/3289532 4 APP/J0405/W/21/3275605 shops, pubs and restaurants they do not need access to employment, education, and would be less likely to need doctors and other similar services. Moreover, holiday makers are more likely to be willing to take leisurely walks to services and facilities than the occupants of permanent dwellings. The consent for the holiday lodges would, therefore, not justify the appeal proposal.

Even though the proposal would provide an improved footpath and cycle route, is near to other housing, and constitutes redevelopment of PDL, it should still be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and should be focused on offering a genuine choice of transport modes, to comply with the Framework. Considering the rural area and the limited opportunities for sustainable transport modes, the proposal would rely heavily on the private car, or home deliveries. In that regard the appeal before me is materially different to the appeals at The Old Piggeries, Croft Farm5 and Lavendon which are all closer to the village services and, in the case of [address], accessible by a footpath along a lightly trafficked lane.

The appeal at Dunsmore Garage6 is similar to the appeal before me in terms of distance from the nearest facilities, however it is materially different as [name] is contained by existing development. The site at Newton Lane7, which was approved by the Council, is next to a settlement and all services and facilities were within walking distance. As far as the appeal before me is considered, it is materially different to the other sites referred to and would not promote sustainable modes of transport or contribute towards reducing carbon emissions. Therefore, it would not support the sustainability of the rural area or support moving towards a low carbon economy.

For the above reasons, I find that the appeal would not provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the settlement strategy for the area and access to services and facilities. It would, therefore, conflict with Policies GP1 and GP2 of the LP as far as they seek to promote sustainable development and resist new development in the countryside.

Although the layout, scale and appearance of the development are all matters that are reserved for later the description of development seeks approval for ten detached dwellings. Consequently, although the appellant has provided an alternative indicative layout showing a scheme that would adopt a farmstead typology such a layout would not comply with the description of development and would not be capable of being considered as a reserved matters scheme for the outline proposed.

The appeals at The Grange8 and Newmarket Road9 are materially different to the appeal before me in that The Grange proposed a farmstead typology, with layout submitted for approval at the outline stage, and the [address] development was a full planning application. 5 APP/P3420/W/19/3225154 6 APP/E3715/W/20/3265719 7 Council reference R14/1658 8 APP/Z2505/W/18/3211205 9 APP/V0510/W/17/3188865

The character of the area is of a quiet, gently undulating, rural landscape dominated by agricultural land with occasional houses. The existing appearance fits in with the key characteristics of the Dunsmore and Feldon National Character Area and the [name], as detailed in the Landscape and [name] (the LVIA). The housing on the same side of [site address] is sporadic and closer to the road. Although there are buildings on the opposite side of the road which extend further back these are different in context and layout to the appeal proposal. The houses on the opposite side are large, detached houses in large plots, they are also screened from the road by trees, hedges, and walls. All of the houses in the immediate area are physically disconnected from [site address] by open fields and are not, in themselves, a settlement or ribbon development. Moreover, there is no evidence of a scale and form of development similar to the appeal proposal.

The proposed houses would be visible from viewpoints one, two and eleven, as noted in the LVIA. The main view of the development would be from [site address] and I saw at my visit that the existing buildings are visible. Nevertheless, the existing buildings are not harmful to the character and appearance of the area and, in my judgement, they reflect the rural character of the countryside location. Although the LVIA assesses the visual impact to be, at worst, minor adverse, the appeal scheme, for ten detached houses set back from the road, would be visually discordant with the existing buildings and the housing in the immediate area. Additional landscaping would be beneficial but would not substantially reduce the visual effect of ten detached houses.

Given the existing rural context, the scale and position of the existing equestrian buildings on the site, and the scale and form of housing in the immediate area, I am not convinced that the site could accommodate ten detached dwellings in a form and layout which would respect the existing character of the area.

For these reasons, I find that the proposal, albeit in outline, would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policies SDC1 and NE3 of the LP which, taken together, seek to ensure that development responds to the character of the area, relates well to local built form, and contributes positively to landscape character.

The proposal is for outline planning permission for ten detached dwellings with only the access detailed at this stage. Although the application form advised that all of the proposed dwellings would have four or more bedrooms this information is not submitted for approval at this stage. The layout, scale and appearance of the proposed development would need to be submitted for approval, if I were minded to allow the appeal.

Therefore, the mix of housing, in terms of the number of bedrooms in each property, including the affordable units, would be for the reserved matters stage. It would need to comply with the requirements of Policies H1 and H2 of the LP, contribute to the overall mix of housing in the locality, and take account of the identified need at that time.

For these reasons, the current appeal, as an outline application, would be capable of providing a suitable mix of housing to comply with Policies H1 and H2 of the LP which, taken together, require development to form a mix of market housing types and sizes consistent with the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (the SHMA), require developments to contribute to the mix in the locality, require affordable housing to be provided on sites of at least 0.36 hectares, and seek a mix of affordable housing in compliance with the SHMA.

Policy NE3 of the LP seeks to ensure that development positively contributes to landscape character and requires development to integrate landscape into the design, and conserve and enhance key landscape features.

The submitted Tree Protection, Retention & Removals Plan (the Tree Plan) confirms the root protection area of the trees within and next to the site. The Tree Plan confirms that the access would be outside of the root protection area and the canopy of the mature Larch tree. The proposed access would, therefore, be capable of being constructed without adversely affecting this tree.

The Lime tree is also indicated as being outside of the area proposed for built development. However, this would need to be confirmed at the reserved matters stage if I were minded to allow the appeal. Nevertheless, the site would be capable of being developed without harming the Lime tree, which is noted as an outstanding arboricultural feature of the site.

Following the receipt of the additional tree information, I find that the proposed development would not adversely affect trees and would, therefore, be capable of complying with Policy NE3 of the LP.

In addition to the appeal decisions already noted above the appellant has also submitted the appeal decisions for 5 Windrush Way10, which was for a site within the development boundary, and Nightingales11, which was for development that complied with the direction of growth in the development plan. The appellant has not sought to explain the relevance of these decisions to the appeal proposal before me. Nevertheless, those two appeals are materially different to the scheme before me.

Overall, and taking consideration of the [name] caselaw12, I have had regard to the previous decisions. However, there are sound planning reasons for departing from those decisions and material differences to each of them. My decision in this case is consistent with fairness.

The conduct of the Council during the consideration of the planning application is not determinative in the appeal. The Framework advises that Councils should work with applicants to resolve issues but it does not place a duty on them to do so. The Council determined the application before them, based on the Policies in the LP and the advice in the Framework.

Both parties agree that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply with the quoted supply being 4.6 years, which is a limited shortfall but still a shortfall. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework therefore applies.

Policies GP1 and GP2 of the LP are the most relevant in considering the proposal. As far as the policies seek to limit development in the countryside to that which protects its character, they are broadly consistent with the Framework which seeks to ensure that development contributes to and enhances the natural and local environment, by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Policy GP2 does not seek to prevent all development outside of settlements and would allow certain forms of development where they comply with national policy. Moreover, the adopted policies are broadly consistent with the Framework as a whole in seeking to ensure sustainable development in rural areas by locating housing where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

I have given the conflict with the local policies significant weight in this appeal. Consequently, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The proposal would accord with the aims of the Framework in boosting the supply of housing and has the opportunity of providing a mix of size, type, and tenure of housing, including affordable housing, notwithstanding the submitted viability assessment. Moreover, the proposal would also provide economic benefits both during and post construction and environmental and ecological benefits from landscaping, the area of open space, the proposed footpath and through the use of renewable energy technologies.

However, as a development of ten dwellings these benefits are limited when weighing the merits of the scheme. I therefore afford significant weight to the limited benefit the development would make to addressing the housing shortfall.

On the other side of the balance, the proposal would result in environmental harm from the impact on the character of the area. It is also not in a location that is accessible to services and facilities without reliance on the private car. There are very limited opportunities for sustainable transport options, even with the provision of e-cycles and the new footpath/cycle route. These harms are significant and afforded significant weight.

That there are no refusal reasons relating to highway safety, heritage, archaeology, ecology, contamination, flood risk, or drainage are neutral factors and would not be significant enough to alter or outweigh my conclusions on the

The harms when taken together would, therefore, significantly, and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that would arise from the development. As a result, the presumption in favour does not apply.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.