Appeal 6000807

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is accompanied by two brochure details of Aerona3 R32 Heat Pump Range. This information has been submitted in response to the second reason for refusal. Although this information has not been subject to formal public consultation, the Council have provided comments in relation to it. In light of this, and given my findings below, accepting this evidence at this stage would not be unfair and would not deprive those who should have been consulted the opportunity of such consultation. Therefore, having regard to the principles of Holborn1, acceptance of the brochure details would not be procedurally unfair and as a result I have taken this information into account in determining this appeal.

The main issues are:  whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for the proposed development, with particular regard to the local development strategy and access to services and facilities; and  whether the proposed air source heat pump would harm the living conditions of nearby occupiers with particular regard to noise.

Policy 1 of the North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 January 2016 (LP) reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). LP Policy 2 sets out the [name] for development. It defines the countryside as the areas outside of the defined 1 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) boundaries of the four main towns, Stalbridge and the larger villages that are the main focus for growth given their range of services and facilities. There is no dispute between the main parties that the site lies in the countryside outside of the settlement boundaries for the four main towns, and outside of Stalbridge and the larger villages. I have no reason to disagree.

LP Policy 20 states that Stalbridge and the eighteen larger villages will form the focus for growth outside of the four main towns. It further states that development in the countryside outside of defined settlement boundaries will only be permitted if it is of a type appropriate in the countryside as set out in Figure 8.5, or for any other type of development if it can be demonstrated that there is an ‘overriding need’ for it to be located in the countryside.

With regard to Figure 8.5 and in relation to housing development, this includes rural exception schemes, occupational dwellings, re-use of heritage assets, re-use of redundant or disused building and sites for Gypsies, Travellers and [name]. The proposal does not fall under any of these types of development.

With regard to demonstrating an overriding need, Paragraphs 8.187 to 8.190 of the LP explain that for other types of development to be acceptable in principle the Council has to be convinced that there is an overriding need for a countryside location. In relation to this the policy refers to certain types of agricultural, horticultural, grey, social or green infrastructure projects as examples. The proposal does not represent one of these, or a similar, type of example.

I have had regard to the appellant stating that [address] forms part of an established ribbon of dwellings with the proposal being consistent with the surrounding pattern of development, completing the frontage and representing infill/rounding off of [address]. I have also had regard to the location not being isolated and being served by a local bus route and the presence of nearby villages at Holwell, [name] and [name] that benefit from a school, shop and public house.

However, being part of an established ribbon/surrounding pattern of development, completing a frontage and representing infill/rounding off do not comprise one of the types of development locations or housing types that find support from [name] 1, 2 or 20. Furthermore, this does not address the location of the site in relation to services and facilities, with the Council advising that the local bus service is restricted leaving at 07:50 to Sherborne and returning back at 16:00 Monday to Friday. This is a very limited service that would not cater for a range of times and needs. Moreover, the nearest large settlement is 12km away with the nearby villages only accessible by fairly narrow, unlit country lanes without full street lighting. As such, access to a wide range of shopping, leisure, employment and health services and facilities, would result in over-reliance upon the motor vehicle with the location of the appeal site not encouraging walking, cycling or be served by a range of other modes of transport.

As a result of the above, the proposed development would be contrary to the spatial strategy of the adopted LP. As such, the appeal site is not an appropriate location for the proposed development, with particular regard to the local development strategy and access to services and facilities. The proposal is therefore contrary to [name] 1, 2 and 20, the aims of which I have outlined above.

Although the appeal proposal is accompanied by product specification sheets, these detail a range of models of differing sizes and specifications. As such, I cannot be sure which model and specification is proposed.

Furthermore, whilst the specification sheets detail air source heat pumps of a reasonably small size with details of sound power and pressure levels provided, I acknowledge that the noise levels are in excess of the level deemed appropriate by the Council for a location with low background noise levels and in close proximity to an adjoining dwelling.

However, I see no good reason why suitable conditions could not be imposed should I allow the appeal to ensure that the final details of the air source heat pump, along with its noise levels are submitted to and approved by the Council prior to first use of the air source heat pump. This would enable the Council and appellant to agree the size and noise level and any further noise mitigation measures to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers should this be necessary.

As a result, and subject to appropriately worded conditions, the proposed air source heat pump would not harm the living conditions of nearby occupiers with particular regard to noise. As such, it would comply with [name] 24 and 25 which amongst other things seek to ensure that development is designed to improve the character and quality of the area, and that noise does not cause an unacceptable level of disturbance to occupants of nearby properties.

The lack of harm to highway safety, public rights of way, provision of suitable parking and turning space and biodiversity net gains carry limited weight as they are requirements of local and national planning policy and guidance. There would be benefits to the supply of housing, the local economy from the build and occupation of the property and I acknowledge that the Council state that the design would improve the character and quality of the area. Nonetheless, given the small scale of the scheme and the current appearance of the site not causing harm to the character and appearance of the area, these benefits would be limited.

I also acknowledge that paragraphs 83 and 110 of the Framework state that development in one village may support another and that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport options will vary between urban and rural locations. However, given the location of the site, heavy reliance upon the use of the motor vehicle and given that the proposal is for a single dwelling, any benefits would be limited.

The development would be contrary to the local development strategy, and the relevant policies are largely consistent with the Framework where it states that planning decisions should guide development towards sustainable solutions. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and I give significant weight to the conflict with these policies.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Consequently, because of the provisions of footnote 7, paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework should be applied. The appeal proposal would provide a number of benefits, including providing much needed housing which would contribute towards the supply and mix of housing and vitality in the area, benefit the local economy from construction works, use of a local builder and with future occupiers using local services and facilities. However, given the small scale and nature of the development, the benefits would be limited. In contrast, I have found that the appeal proposal would not promote walking, cycling and public transport use contrary to the local development strategy of locating development close to existing services and facilities. Accordingly, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.