Appeal 6000605

The appeal is allowed and Permission in Principle is granted for residential development of up to 3 new dwellings at land adjacent to [address], [site address] , Kinsham, Gloucestershire, in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01182/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).

The application form states that the proposal is for a minimum and maximum of three dwellings. That said, the description of development on the form, which I have used above, refers to ‘up to’ three dwellings. This form of words was repeated on the appeal form and in the submissions of the appellant and the Council. As a result, I have determined the appeal as being for between one and three dwellings. I have treated the plan submitted as being illustrative of one way that development could take place at the site.

The Council’s first refusal reason referred to conflict with the strategy of the Development Plan, and whether the proposal would minimise demand for travel and offer genuinely sustainable travel choices for future occupiers. However, the Council subsequently withdrew this reason for refusal. As these matters were additionally raised by third parties, I shall consider them further below.

The main issues are whether the location, land use and amount of the proposal would: (a) have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the adjacent Kinsham Conservation Area (CA), and the settings of the [name] listed buildings at [name], Barn at [address] [name] of the House, [address], [name] and [name] (the listed buildings), and (b) accord with the strategy of the Development Plan, and have acceptable access to services and facilities.

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 buildings and their settings, or any features of special architectural or historic interest. Section 72 of the Act requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The site consists of land which partly abuts the CA, but lies outside of it. The CA covers the historic core of the settlement, set around an off-set road junction, and includes the listed buildings. Outside of the CA, the settlement has other properties located along nearby roads. The pattern of development around the CA has become more consolidated over time, such as modern housing opposite and near to the site. Nevertheless, its surroundings remain essentially rural. Relevant to the appeal, the significance of the CA is the rural character of its buildings, spaces and street scenes.

The listed buildings are C17-C18 structures that together form a group located broadly around the junction. As their names suggest, most if not all were primarily associated with agricultural uses, and they continue to have an agrarian feel. For the purposes of this appeal, the significance of these buildings is their age and their traditional, rural appearance and setting.

The appeal site consists of part of a former orchard which is now a paddock, bounded by a roadside rubblestone wall, vegetation and fencing. As such, the appeal site makes a small but positive contribution to the character of the area hereabouts, being part of the rural development pattern. There is no dispute however that the site is not identified as part of a [address] within the Bredon Parish Neighbourhood Plan.

Up to three new dwellings would inherently result in additional permanent built form that would encroach into and erode the countryside now formed by the site. The loss of openness could not be designed out at TDC stage, because it is intrinsic to the proposal, even for just one dwelling. Lighting, and domestic paraphernalia associated with residential use, such as parked cars and hard surfacing, would further add to the suburbanising effects of the proposal. This would undermine the agrarian perception of the listed buildings and the CA.

Nevertheless, part of the appeal site already has some development, including a stable building and a hard-surfaced track. Not all of the wider paddock is proposed for new development. The part which is within the CA, between the appeal site and [address], would continue to provide a degree of openness to the setting of the listed buildings and the CA.

In contrast to an appeal1 at [name], the proposal before me would not be immediately adjacent to a listed building, including those closest to it. Instead, it would be on the opposite side of [site address] , and separated by the modern house at The Brambles. Moreover, when viewed from or with the group of 1 PINS reference APP/H1840/W/25/3364575 listed buildings, the proposal would be seen in the context of other modern residential built development.

Given my findings above, the proposal would cause some harm to the rural nature of the site and the surrounding area, detracting to an extent from the setting and significance of the adjacent CA, and from the listed buildings as a group. Therefore, the proposal and its location, land use and amount would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the CA and listed buildings.

As such, it would conflict with policies SWDP6, SWDP21 and SWDP24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (DP), adopted February 2016, which seek to conserve and enhance heritage assets and their environment, and to reinforce local distinctiveness.

That said, in the language of paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the harm to the heritage assets would be less than substantial. Furthermore, for the reasons given above, the level of harm to the significance of the CA and the listed buildings would be at the lower end of the ‘less than substantial’ range. This harm should be weighed against public benefits, an exercise which I shall undertake under [name] and Matters below.

The site is outside of the area identified by the Development Plan for new development within Kinsham. DP policy SWDP2 sets out the strategy for development in the area, which is strictly controlled in the countryside, as here, to types that do not include the proposal. Conflict with this policy formed part of the Council’s first refusal reason. Nonetheless, as set out above, this reason is no longer pursued by the Council.

DP policy SWDP4 requires the demand for travel to be minimised, and that sustainable travel choices are available to occupiers. Kinsham has few services and facilities of its own. Previous applications and appeals2 at the settlement have been refused because of the heavy reliance of future residents on private vehicles.

However, the Council has recently granted Permission in Principle for one or two dwellings at Lower Lane3. This decision recognised that Kinsham is not far from the village of Bredon, which has a range of services and facilities including a shop, school and GP surgery. Bredon could be accessed by sustainable means, such as walking or cycling, albeit that these options may not be suitable for everyone in all conditions. There is also a limited bus service from Kinsham to Pershore and Cheltenham, accessible from bus stops that are a few minutes’ walk from the site.

Furthermore, the Framework recognises that opportunities for sustainable transport use should take into account location, and will vary between urban and rural areas. The length of car journeys to nearby settlements would be relatively short. Consequently, in the context of its rural location, the site would be reasonably sustainable. 2 For example, LPA references 21/00279/PIP and 15/03096/CU and PINS reference APP/H1840/W/24/3355681 3 LPA reference W/25/01346/PIP

I conclude that the location, land use and amount of the proposal would have acceptable access to services and facilities, and so would accord with policy SWDP4. I have found that it would not accord with the strategy of the Development Plan and policy SWDP2. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, I give this conflict only very limited negative weight.

It is common ground that the Council cannot demonstrate a sufficient supply of deliverable housing land, at only around 1.10 years. The proposal would make a small but important contribution to the supply of housing. Given the very poor housing supply shortfall, described by the Council as exceptional, I give the supply benefits of the proposal substantial positive weight, as a public benefit.

Future occupiers of the dwelling(s) would make positive social and economic contributions. The proposal would have other economic benefits, for example to local businesses and the building industry, and would make efficient use of land. I give these benefits additional moderate positive weight.

As required by the Act, I give the harm identified to the heritage assets considerable importance and weight. In accordance with Framework paragraph 212, I give great weight to the harm to the designated heritage assets and their significance. Nevertheless, for the reasons given, the collective public benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm that I have identified in respect of the CA and listed buildings. 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 light of my findings above, the Framework policies which protect areas and assets of particular importance do not provide a strong reason for refusing the proposal. As such, in contrast to the decision at Beckford4, footnote seven does not apply, and the presumption is engaged. Consequently, it is necessary for me to determine whether the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits, to assist the Council in addressing its undersupply.

Separately from the effects of the proposal on heritage assets, I give limited negative weight to the harm to the character and appearance of the area and the conflict with DP policy SWDP21. I have already found that the conflict with DP policy SWDP2 in respect of the Development Plan strategy carries very little negative weight.

In the vicinity of the site, [site address] is relatively narrow, and I understand is subject to ponding. However, detailed matters of access and drainage are for TDC stage, rather than being fundamental to the principle of development under consideration here. This matter is therefore neutral in the planning balance.

I have found that the adverse effects in respect of the heritage assets, and therefore the conflict with DP policies SWDP6, SWDP21 and SWDP24 in this respect, are outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. Given the weight I attach to the advantages of the development, as set out above, I conclude that the overall balance of considerations supports the proposal. 4 PINS reference APP/H1840/W/23/3329579

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 makes clear 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 at paragraph 11 of the Framework. I have found that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework read in the round.

Consequently, despite the conflict with the Development Plan when read as a whole, the material considerations indicate that Permission in Principle should be granted. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.