Appeal 6000813

The appeal is dismissed.

I note that the appeal is made in outline with all matters reserved for later consideration. Therefore, I have assessed it on this basis.

The main issues are: • whether the site is in a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the provisions of local policy; and • whether the site can be adequately drained.

Policy ST07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 (LP) sets out the Council’s development strategy for the rural area, which focuses on local centres, followed by the villages such as Chilsworthy. Here, support is provided for development that meets local needs and growth aspirations. These are set out in LP Policy HOH, where modest sized sites that contribute towards the retention of local facilities and the attractive rural character of the village, are encouraged. Windfall development is supported, though this only applies to sites within the defined boundary of the village. The countryside is defined in the LP as being land beyond the villages, and this is where development is limited to meet local economic and social needs, rural building reuse and that necessarily restricted to a countryside location.

The Council’s transport strategy is set out in LP Policy ST10. To reduce environmental and social impacts of transport, this policy aims to lessen the need to travel by car, supporting alternative sustainable travel options.

The appeal site comprises a generous parcel of land outside the defined settlement boundary of the village and, although not isolated, is in the countryside for the purposes of the LP. It is stated in the application form that the proposal would comprise market housing, rather than self-build. While other parts of the evidence point towards self-build as a preference, in the absence of any secure mechanism to secure the property in this way, it must be treated as an unfettered scheme. There is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that a market home would represent accommodation to meet local housing needs as required by LP Policy HOH. Moreover, as windfall development outside the village boundary, there would be additional conflict with the policy.

In respect of accessing facilities, having walked around the village, there is a pedestrian route available via a public footpath to play parks, a post office, social club, post box, community library, and bus stops that provide limited services to larger settlements. The footpath is however unlit and uneven, which would not make it universally suitable for all users, though it is acknowledged that one would need only to follow a short stretch to reach areas of better surfacing, lighting and natural surveillance.

In light of the above, future occupiers would probably require the regular use of a private vehicle to access schools, shops, and employment. Although these trips would be reduced to a modest extent by fairly easy access to a limited number of community services and facilities, sustainable travel options encouraged in LP Policy ST10 would not be met. That said, the development would make a small but nevertheless important contribution towards the retention of such local community facilities.

Turning to the rural character, while historic mapping shows that the stone barn within the appeal site has long formed part of the settlement’s outer periphery, the development would nevertheless be likely to extend built form beyond this and into the open countryside. Access to the appeal site is achieved by passing through the centre of a close-knit cluster of properties that form a more obvious defined edge to the settlement. Therefore, although a backland arrangement would be avoided, the proposal would result in a rather unusual incursion into open countryside, distinctly separate from the existing grain of the settlement. As such, the sense of place would be moderately compromised by the development, which would conflict with LP policies ST04 and DM04.

Drawing these matters together, while the development would contribute to the retention of local facilities, it would do so at the expense of the attractive rural character of the village. Additionally, there would be some modest harm associated with the reliance on the private car to access day to day services and facilities. For these reasons, I therefore conclude on this main issue that the site is not a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to local policy. As such, there would be conflict with LP policies ST04, ST07, ST10, and DM04.

The Council is concerned that the proposal fails to demonstrate that acceptable foul drainage can be provided. However, the plans show a foul to sewer connection. This method of disposal is also said to have been part of a previously approved, but now expired, scheme. Therefore, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, I conclude on this main issue there is little reason why the appeal site could not be adequately drained. As such, the development would accord with LP Policy DM02 which, amongst other things, seeks to avoid unacceptable impacts to surface or ground water.

My attention has been drawn to alleged inconsistencies. This includes a previous permission at the appeal site for a similar proposal1. Although that permission may have been supported in light of the Council’s housing supply position at the time, it has lapsed and cannot be relied upon. In any case, I have concluded above that there would be harm in respect of the location. I give this matter limited weight.

It is advanced that the Council has also been inconsistent with its approach to a scheme it permitted outside the development boundary of a different settlement. I am not aware of the site specific circumstances surrounding that decision, though note from the evidence that it was considered to be within a group of properties on a corner of an existing development plot. This is not directly comparable with the scheme before me. Additionally, I am not bound by the decision of the Council and give this matter little weight.

It is common ground that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, where the current supply is said to be in the region of 4.23 to 4.86 years.

Paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework indicates that where the required supply cannot be demonstrated, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

However, it is important that development happens in the right places, and the Framework explains in paragraph 11 d) ii. that particular regard is paid to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations and making efficient use of land. Such provisions are identified in footnote 9 and set out in paragraphs 115 and 129, amongst others. I have concluded above that the proposal would not prioritise sustainable transport modes that limit future car use, which conflicts with these policies. Paragraphs 129 and 135 say, in part, that decisions should support and be sympathetic to an area’s prevailing character and setting. Again, I have found there to be some conflict in this regard.

While no affordable housing is proposed, the key policy in the Framework set out in paragraph 66 relates to major development, which would not apply to this proposal. Accordingly, although the provision of affordable housing in rural areas is supported elsewhere in the Framework, any conflict with this key policy would not weigh against the proposal.

The social benefits of housing delivery can be afforded significant weight, yet these are softened by the fact that the dwelling would make a very modest contribution to addressing the housing shortfall. The scheme would also bring some limited economic benefits to the construction industry and thereafter through additional consumer spending in the local economy. Additionally, as it has not 1 Ref 1/0201/2021/OUT been shown how self-build housing could be secured, the support in paragraph 129 in the Framework for different types of housing carries little weight.

In that context, as I cannot be certain that the development would be delivered as self-build housing, and in the absence of the necessary supporting information, it is not known whether or not the requirements and possible benefits with respect to biodiversity net gain could be achieved. As such, I attach little weight to any environmental gains.

Against any such benefits I need to balance the adverse impacts. The need to deliver sustainable patterns of growth is an important consideration and one which is embedded in the Framework. The harm arising from the relatively poor access to services and facilities by sustainable transport modes, the prevailing character of the settlement, and absence of an identified need for this type of housing provision would run contrary to the social and environmental objectives of sustainable development.

Overall, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. As such, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out within Framework paragraph 11.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says development should be in accordance with the development plan ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’, and this is reaffirmed in the Framework.

Although there would be no harm in respect of drainage disposal, this is a neutral matter that would not outweigh the locational harm identified. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole. Furthermore, even when considered cumulatively, there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.