Appeal 6000612

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal proposal is for outline planning permission for one dwelling with all matters reserved.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for housing with regard to the local development strategy, and, • the effect of the proposed development on the River Wye Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

Policy RA2 of the Herefordshire Local Plan Core Strategy (October 2015) (CS) supports proportionate housing growth in or adjacent to identified settlements, where certain criteria are met. However, the settlement boundary for Kinnersley is not defined within the development plan. Therefore, it is a matter of planning judgement based on what is on the ground, as to whether or not the appeal site is within the settlement.

The appeal site is within the grounds of an existing equine based business premises, contains an existing barn and there are other buildings nearby within and adjacent to the wider equine site. This includes other dwellings situated along [address], which have a linear form. Kinnersley comprises a ribbon of development, principally some 1km to the north. From my site observations, on the ground there is clear visual and physical separation between the cluster of buildings in and around the appeal site and Kinnersley, including intervening fields. In view of such, I consider the appeal site is outside the settlement, in the open countryside. Also, it is not adjacent to a settlement identified in Figures 4.14 and 4.15 of Policy RA2 of the CS.

Furthermore, while it is undisputed by the main parties that the appeal site is brownfield land and would comprise previously developed land, as defined in Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), due to the site’s location within the open countryside, Policy RA3, as opposed to Policy RA2, of the CS applies to the appeal proposal.

Policy RA3 sets out that residential development in the open countryside will be limited to proposals that satisfy one or more of the stated criteria. From the evidence provided, the proposal would not meet an agricultural or forestry need or other farm diversification enterprise need for a worker to live permanently at or near their place of work and, it does not accompany nor is necessary to the establishment or growth of a rural enterprise, in accordance with Policy RA4 of the CS. The proposal is not for a replacement dwelling and would not involve the re-use of a redundant or disused building in compliance with Policy RA5 of the CS. Additionally, it has not been demonstrated that it would be rural exception housing in accordance with Policy H2 of the CS, a dwelling of exceptional quality and innovative design, or that it would provide for the needs of gypsies or other travellers in accordance with policy H4 of the CS. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policy RA3 of the CS.

The wider site is currently in commercial use and there are other barns and a dwelling without a restriction to tie it to the commercial business. However, such matters and even if the proposed dwelling could be designed so as not to appear as a suburban addition to the landscape, this would not ensure the proposal complies with the criteria set out in Policy RA3 of the CS.

In view of the above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the housing strategy for the area, contrary to Policy RA3 of the CS, which restricts development in rural locations outside settlements. Policy SS1 of the CS reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development and so, my findings as to whether the proposal accords with this policy is part of my overall balance below.

The appeal site is within the catchment area for the River Wye Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The SAC is identified under the Habitats Regulations as being of international importance for its aquatic flora and fauna. There are a number of qualifying species within the SAC, which include white clawed crayfish, sea lamprey, brook lamprey, river lamprey, alis shad, twaite shad, Atlantic salmon, bullhead and otter. Additionally, qualifying habitats of the SAC include transition mires and quaking bogs and water course of plain to montane levels with Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation (rivers with floating vegetation often dominated by water-crowfoot).

The conservation objectives for the SAC are to ensure the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the favourable conservation status of its qualifying features. The present condition status of the SAC is unfavourable-declining, with the [name] component of [name] catchment being in an unfavourable condition with regard to phosphates and the [name] component in an unfavourable condition with regard to nitrogen and phosphates. In such areas any additional development that would result in a net increase in population served by a wastewater system, including new homes would require suitable mitigation measures to avoid further nutrient pollution. Therefore, as the proposal is for an additional dwelling with a wastewater system, it would have likely significant effects on the integrity of the [name] due to nutrient pollution.

In view of the likely significant effects, it is necessary to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations).

The evidence indicates that no public or private sewer connections are possible for the new dwelling. Furthermore, the percolation tests carried out by [name] confirm that a traditional drainage field solution would not be possible. As a result, the appellant proposes an above-ground drainage treatment system. Although details of a potential GRAF standard sewage system have been provided, this does not demonstrate that the proposal would ensure no adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC. Additionally, I have no evidence that Natural England supports the proposed drainage mitigation measures. Given this, I cannot be certain that the suggested drainage condition would meet the test of precision for conditions or deliver effective mitigation within land owned by the appellant to ensure the integrity of the SAC would be unharmed. Consequently, and in the absence of any alternative mechanism to guarantee no impact on the SAC, I must adopt the precautionary approach in considering the appeal proposal.

In view of the above, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the [name] and the requirements of Regulation 63 of the Habitat Regulations would not be met and the proposal would conflict with paragraphs 185-188 of the Framework. For such reasons, the proposal would also conflict with Policy SD4 of the CS, which sets out that development should not undermine the achievement of water targets for rivers within the county. This includes that where nutrient levels exceed conservation objectives within a SAC designated river and proposals include non-mains alternative drainage options, it needs to be demonstrated that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC.

Additionally, the proposal would conflict with Policies SS6 and LD2 of the CS, which, amongst other matters, require development proposals to conserve and enhance environmental assets, including biodiversity and geodiversity assets, which include sites of European importance.

Planning permission has been granted for a dwelling nearby at [address] that is also located outside the settlement boundary, in the open countryside; appeal ref APP/W1850/W/25/3359630. This relates to the removal of a condition to allow a holiday cottage to become a permanent dwelling, as opposed to the construction of a new building to create a dwelling, with an additional drainage system.

In that case, the Inspector found in their planning balance that, other considerations, including the lack of a 5-year supply of housing land and that there were no adverse impacts demonstrated, significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the development. Whereas, the appeal proposal is for a different form of development with a different site context, including the construction of a new building with an additional drainage system. Furthermore, I have found the appeal proposal would cause harm to the [name].

The Council cannot demonstrate a deliverable 5 year supply of housing land. Stated to be 3.11 years in the Council’s Five Year Housing Land Supply (2025-

[name] at the 1 April 2025 (October 2025). As such, in line with paragraph 11d of the Framework, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. However, in view of my findings in relation to the [name], paragraph 11d) i applies and so, provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed in this instance and so, 11 d) ii does not apply.

In conclusion, for the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.