Appeal 6000892

The appeal is dismissed.

The application for costs made by the appellant against the Council is the subject of a separate decision.

The application was originally for nine dwellings but was amended to six dwellings before the appeal was made. Apart from access all matters are reserved for future determination. The accompanying layout is therefore indicative although showing how the dwellings could be laid out. Illustrative house types were also provided.

The Council has indicated the reasons for refusal that it would have used had it determined the application and these are reflected in the main issues. The site address used by the Council is also more helpful in describing its location.

These are: • Whether the proposed dwellings would be in a suitable location having regard to relevant development plan policies relating to the spatial strategy, development in the countryside and managing travel demand; and • The effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Thoroton Conservation Area.

Policy 3 of the Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan Part 1: [name] supports urban concentration and directs development to the main built-up areas of Nottingham and the [name]. Elsewhere the supporting text indicates that local needs will be delivered through small scale infill development. This is reiterated in the Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies which goes on to define infilling as the development of small gaps within the existing built fabric of the village. Policy 22 of Part 2 applies where development is outside the physical boundaries of a number of listed settlements, including Thoroton, and therefore in the countryside.

The appeal site is a grassed paddock on the perimeter of the village. The Local Plan does not define settlement boundaries. There are dwellings in [address] directly along the eastern side of the site and there is also built development to the south. However, there is farmland to the north and west. Although the relationship with the physical edge of the village is a close one, the proposal would significantly extend the settlement outwards towards the open countryside. It would therefore be outside the built-up area of the settlement where development should generally be restricted in accordance with Part 2 Policy 11.

As it is outside of the built fabric of Thoroton, the proposal would not be infill development. The site has a different appearance to the adjoining agricultural land and is bordered by the road on one side and a track to [address] to the west. However, given the lack of built development in either of these directions it cannot reasonably be described as a “gap”. Neither would six dwellings usually be considered small scale in this context. There is no policy exception for ‘rounding off’. The proposal therefore does not meet the development plan criteria for new housing at the smaller settlements in the Borough.

Planning permission was given at appeal (Ref: APP/P3040/W/21/3277807) for three detached dwellings within a residential curtilage at [name] in Orston. However, there was an extent permission for a single dwelling and the Inspector found that the land was an infill site. That case can therefore be distinguished from this one and it does not provide any significant supporting justification.

Other permissions for new housing have been granted in Thoroton including those in 2018 and 2019 for the properties now built on the western side of [address]. However, these have perpetuated the largely linear form of the village mirroring the row on the opposite side of the road. They are therefore reflective of the prevailing pattern of development and were also considered under a different policy context. Furthermore, although extending up to [address], their presence does not imply that all the land to the south of it should be considered to be within the built extent of the village.

Whilst planning policies do not preclude windfall development at Thoroton, this is limited to particular circumstances. These are not met by the appeal site and this finding is not altered by other development that has taken place in recent times. As a result, the proposal would be contrary to the spatial strategy for Rushcliffe as set out in relevant Local Plan policies. Allowing the appeal would seriously undermine the broad approach to achieving sustainable development. Furthermore, it would be at odds with the plan-led planning system espoused by the National Planning Policy Framework.

Linked to the spatial strategy, Policy 14 of the [name] aims to manage travel demand by reducing the need to travel, especially by private car. This will be done by securing new developments of appropriate scale in the most accessible locations.

There is an absence of services and facilities in Thoroton with no shops, schools, pubs or doctors. There is a bus stop but, according to the Council, the regularity and frequency of services is restricted. As such, future residents would be heavily car dependent even if they use the facilities in the surrounding network of villages. Growth in Thoroton is not precluded. Nevertheless, the quantum of development proposed would be significant in the context of this small village. Therefore, the proposal would not promote sustainable transport in line with the Framework and would be contrary to the intentions of Policy 14. This is a further objection.

The indicative layout shows an L shaped group of buildings. It shows that as well as accommodating six dwellings a large part of the site could remain undeveloped. Furthermore, development in depth exists within the village and courtyard-type housing has also been permitted. The matters of appearance, layout and scale are reserved so that the design quality required by the Council’s Design Code Supplementary Planning Document could be achieved at that stage.

The land is well contained visually within the generally flat landscape by the substantial roadside hedge and the row of planting adjacent to the farm track. The new access would be in the same position as the existing field gate. Some urbanising works would be required, especially given that the number of units exceeds the limit that should be accessed from a private drive. However, as the hedge is set back behind a grassed verge, achieving the requisite sight lines would be likely to have a minimal effect on it. The most marked adverse impact on the lane would be the footway proposed between the entrance and [address].

Indeed, [address] has a strong rural character with hedging on both sides and an absence of built development. The presence of the village is only revealed close to the junction with [address]. This quality would inevitably be compromised by six dwellings on the appeal site however discretely and attractively they were designed. Indeed, this approach to the village would be spoiled as the abrupt shift from countryside to built-up area would be diluted and an important aspect of the local identity of the village would be eroded.

It is inevitable that the development of a greenfield site will change its intrinsic character. However, in this case the land is enclosed by vegetation and closely related to existing built development. As such, it would not intrude noticeably into the countryside on the edge of Thoroton and would not conflict with the provisions of Policy 22 of the Part 2 Plan. However, the character and appearance of the surrounding area would be harmed because of the unsympathetic impact on the rural qualities of [address]. Although the level of harm would not be high, there would be conflict with Policy 10 of the [name] and the development requirements in Policy 1 of Part 2.

The conservation area comprises the majority of the village together with surrounding fields, particularly those to the east. The buildings are a mixture of older and newer properties set at varied angles and positions along the sinuous [address]. They are punctuated by landmark buildings such at the Grade 1 listed Church of [name] and other historic focal points such as the Pigeoncote. Open spaces also make a positive contribution. Indeed, setting is part of the special character as there are no built structures surrounding the village. Its significance as a heritage asset therefore derives from this, its rural location and the history and quality of the built form.

The Conservation Area Appraisal does not identify the appeal site as a [name]. However, it highlights a significant view along [address] from [address] and also indicates that on the approach to the village hedgerows combined with wide grass verges and trees contribute to its rural character. It is the adverse effect on these aspects of the conservation area, as described above, that would be harmful. Indeed, in the words of the Framework, the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset. The degree of that harm would be towards the lower end of the spectrum but this is nonetheless a matter of considerable importance and weight.

The proposed development would not adversely affect the setting of either the Church or the [name] listed [address] due to the separation between them.

However, it would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Thoroton Conservation Area. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy 11 of the [name] on the historic environment and Policy 28 of the Part 2 Plan which is concerned with conserving and enhancing heritage assets.

It has not been demonstrated that there are any particular local housing needs that the proposal would address. The Framework supports the location of rural housing where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of communities. In a general way the proposal would increase the resident population and so would be liable to support local services in nearby villages although this is not quantified. However, there is no clear evidence that Thoroton would be revitalised by six more houses. The economic and social benefits in this respect would therefore be small.

The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of homes. This is to be achieved by a range of measures but there is nothing to indicate that there is an imperative need for more new homes in the rural part of the Borough. There is no evidence, for example, that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable sites or that past delivery has fallen behind. The additional units that would be created therefore provide limited support to the proposal.

Other concerns have been raised including those in relation to wildlife; residential amenity; noise; the lack of affordable housing; highway safety and surface water flooding. These are either addressed in the officer report or are matters for the reserved matters stage and therefore do not add to the objections identified.

The Framework indicates that the less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. In this case, there are other significant objections so that the outcome of that exercise would not affect the final decision.

In particular, the proposal would be contrary to the spatial strategy for Rushcliffe and would seriously undermine the broad approach to achieving sustainable development. It would not promote sustainable transport as future residents would be heavily reliant on the car. There would be limited harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and a low level of harm to the significance of the Thoroton Conservation Area. Taken together, these objections are of considerable force and the proposal would not be in line with the development plan.

The benefits associated with new housing on the edge of the village are not great and fall well short of outweighing the overall level of harm that would be caused.

The material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, the proposed development is unacceptable and the appeal should not succeed.