Appeal 6000689

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would accord with the spatial strategy of the Development Plan, including in respect of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and • whether the proposal would have adequate access to shops, services and facilities.

The site consists of part of an undeveloped field on the edge of the village of Aldington. Policy SWDP2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (DP), February 2016, strictly controls development in the countryside, as here, to certain types. These include development which is specifically permitted by other SWDP policies. DP policy SWDP36 permits new chalet and log cabin sites in the countryside, but only where they are visually unobtrusive, have appropriate landscaping and are well-related to their setting, including the landscape.

The County Council’s Landscape Character Assessment, August 2012, identifies the site and its surroundings as being within the ‘Village Farmlands with Orchards’ type. This is characterised by a distinctive lowland agricultural landscape, a rural, tranquil character, scattered development and few intrusions from modern developments. The pattern of development within Aldington is focused primarily on the main road through the village, and its offshoots, which is otherwise surrounded by countryside and woodland.

The proposal would consist of modest log cabin buildings, using natural materials, controlled external lighting, and a low-density layout. Nevertheless, it would result in built-up form, together with hard surfacing and domestic paraphernalia, such as cars and seating. These features would suburbanise and detract from the existing rural and undeveloped appearance of the site.

Furthermore, the proposal would have a detached form, being located away from the main part of the village and intruding into the surrounding countryside. This would extend the village in a direction that does not reflect its existing pattern of development. As a result, the design, form and scale of the proposal would not be well-related to its setting, and nor would it reflect the agricultural, rural landscape hereabouts.

Sparse boundary vegetation means that views of the site are clearly obtainable from a long section of the public footpath that adjoins the site, with further restricted views available from the B4035. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) describes the adverse visual effects as low once landscaping has taken effect. Even so, such screening may take years to be effective. It cannot be relied upon, especially in winter months when foliage is reduced, and nor can its survival in the long term be guaranteed.

In some places only limited space is available between the development and the site boundaries, potentially limiting the scope for landscaping to be successful. Lengthy, tall and/or evergreen planting sufficient to screen the proposal is itself likely to appear out of place. As such, in my view, the LVIA under-plays the visual effects from the footpath in particular. Furthermore, the landscaping arrangements would not overcome my concerns about the pattern of development. Consequently, the proposal would not be visually unobtrusive or well-related to the wider landscape.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As a result, it would be contrary to DP policy SWDP36 as well as policy SWDP25, which requires integration with the character of the landscape setting. It follows that the proposal would also not accord with policy SWDP2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) also requires rural tourism and leisure developments to respect the character of the countryside. I give this conflict substantial weight.

DP policy SWDP4 requires that the demand for travel should be minimised, and that proposals should offer genuinely sustainable travel choices. The Council’s Intelligently Green Plan reflects this aim. Aldington is a category four village in the hierarchy of the SWDP. It has few facilities, with no shop or school.

Badsey, a category one village, has a wider range of services such as shops, a public house, leisure facilities and wider transport links. Although access from the site to Badsey would be possible by bicycle, there is no specific provision for this on the roads hereabouts. The facilities are beyond the walkable distances referred to by Manual for Streets. As such, holidaymakers at the site are likely to be reliant on private vehicles for many journeys.

However, there are bus stops on the B4035. On the limited evidence available to me, these provide services to other destinations, and can be accessed at relatively short distance via the public footpath adjacent to the site. Whilst use of the footpath and its deteriorated surface may not be suitable for everyone, or in all circumstances, it would provide an alternative transport choice for some visitors.

Moreover, the Framework makes clear that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. In the rural context of the site, given the close proximity of Badsey, as well as Evesham, the proposal would have reasonably good access to services and facilities. I am also mindful that DP policy SWDP36 relates specifically to development such as the proposal, and makes no requirements regarding sustainable transport.

Consequently, the proposal would have adequate access to shops, services and facilities. In relation to this issue, it would therefore comply with DP policies SWDP2 and SWDP4 in this respect. As such, this is a neutral factor within the overall planning balance. I shall consider policy SWDP1 below.

At paragraph 11, the Framework sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This makes clear that where development plan policies are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, assessed against the Framework as a whole. DP policy SWPD1 similarly reflects this presumption.

The proposal is for residential use, albeit for holiday accommodation, and would provide an additional nine units. Future occupiers of the holiday accommodation would make a positive economic contribution to the area by providing jobs and additional visitors. Construction of the proposal would result in further economic benefits. I give these benefits significant positive weight, reflecting the advice at Framework paragraph 85.

No evidence is before me regarding the Council’s housing land supply position. Nonetheless, for the reasons given above, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. Accordingly, the proposal would not be supported by DP policy SWPD1.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.