Appeal 6001091

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is accompanied by a Planning Obligation (PO) under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that secures the construction of the dwelling as a self-build house. This has been submitted to address reason for refusal number 3 to ensure that the proposed development would be exempt from [name]. The Council has confirmed that the submission of the PO overcomes its third reason for refusal and as such concedes to not defend this reason for refusal. [name] have no reason to disagree, I do not need to deal with this as a main issue.

In light of the [name] above, 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 • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy 2 of the North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 January 2016 (LP) sets out the [name] for development. It defines the countryside as the areas outside of the defined 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, in relation to housing development, this includes rural exception schemes, occupational dwellings, re-use of heritage assets and redundant or disused buildings and sites for Gypsies, Travellers and [name]. The proposal is not one of the types of development under Figure 8.5 and does not represent one of the types of development under [name] 8.187 to 8.190 for which there is an overriding need for a countryside location.

I have had regard to the appellant stating that [site address] is no longer a ‘less than sustainable village’ due to the presence of a pub, church, petrol filling station, range of employment opportunities and enlarged convenience store, and that as such the village supports a network of other local villages. Furthermore, I note the location of the village on the A30 makes it a popular stop for local tradespeople and is considered by the appellant to have a higher degree of containment than other villages with employment facilities within 2.5 and 4 miles.

However, the enlarged convenience store primarily serves passing traffic on the A30, was considered acceptable on this basis and is a considerable distance from the site accessed via narrow lanes and the A30 that do not have lighting or pavements. With regard to access by bicycle, this would also involve a climb up [site address] to the site and given the busy nature of the A30, it would not encourage the use of the bicycle. [name] note a proposal for a 20mph zone to part of the A30, this would not reduce the distance needed to travel to access the store or significantly reduce traffic numbers. Given the distances involved, access to employment facilities would also necessitate the use of the motor vehicle.

[name] note the other facilities nearby in terms of the presence of a pub, village hall and church, facilities are limited and future occupants would need to travel elsewhere to meet their day-to-day needs with regard to a range of shopping, education, leisure and health. As a result, it is probable that future occupants would be drawn to the nearest main town of Gillingham. Given its distance, journey time and routes, lack of a bus service other than to a local school, and despite the availability of a cycleway, would not significantly encourage the use of alternatives to a motor vehicle. This would give rise to environmental harm through vehicle emissions, despite the upward trajectory in the use and support for electric cars.

I acknowledge that paragraphs 83 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (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 with no guarantee that occupiers would support a large number of facilities in other villages, I give this very limited weight.

[name] accept the shortfalls in rural public transport in Dorset and general reliance on the use of motor vehicles, in my view this helps to justify the strategic approach to the distribution of development as set out in the LP and supported by the Framework, rather than validating that a lack of access to public transport and continued expansion of settlements where the lack of alternatives to the use of the motor vehicle should be considered acceptable.

The appellant states that [site address] once had a settlement boundary and that there have been improvements in the sustainability of [site address] relative to other settlements. However, I have limited evidence in relation to this and whilst changes to planning policies and sustainability occur over time, this does not change my assessment above that is based upon current circumstances.

I have had regard to the [name] and Buckhorn Weston Neighbourhood Plan introducing settlement boundaries and allowing minor development within them. However, in the absence of the details and circumstances behind this, and in the absence of a Neighbourhood Plan for [site address] containing settlement boundaries and allowing minor development, I give this limited weight.

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] 2 and 20, the aims of which I have outlined above.

The appeal site is located off [address], at the end of a ribbon of housing development, on the northern fringe of the village. The site lies beyond a vehicular access serving Foxgloves, [name] and their garages.

To the frontage of the access serving the adjacent dwellings, [address] bends sharply to the west at its junction with [address], with [address] accessed off the bend. [address] comprises a steep drop in ground level. In light of the access, junction, change of levels and extent of vegetation to the site frontage, there is a clear transition in character from the existing ribbon of development to the location for the proposed dwelling. [name] acknowledge the presence of a couple of dwellings to the north along [address], they appear separate and detached from the ribbon of housing to the south of the appeal site. As such, they are viewed as falling beyond the developed edge of the village.

In light of the above, and as with the findings of the previous appeal decision on the site1, I find that the appeal site falls beyond the perceived edge of the village. As such, and as the proposed development is on land not well related to other existing development or to the form of the settlement, it would not entail an appropriate final rounding off. The proposal would also be at odds with the existing pattern of development by virtue of the lack of frontage to [address] and elevated position above [address] separate from the existing ribbon of development.

This would be the case despite the proposal being partly screened by the frontage landscaping and being of a more modest and traditional design in comparison to the previous proposal dismissed on appeal, and the proposal not being highly visible from the public footpath to the east of the site. The proposal would appear intrusive and lack integration with the existing street scene, regardless of whether or not it would be the last plot developed before the topography changes. 1 APP/N1215/W/20/3251522

It follows from the above that I conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with LP Policy 4 which seeks to protect the landscape of the District, LP Policy 24 which states that development should be designed to improve the character and quality of an area; and provisions within the Framework relating to achieving well-designed places.

A lack of harm from the design of the dwelling carries limited weight as it is a requirement of planning policy. There would be benefits to the supply of housing/self-build housing for a local resident at a time when opportunities and housing plots are severely restricted. There would also be benefits from the contribution that the small site would make to housing delivery, and to the economy from the build and occupation of the property. Nonetheless, given the small scale of the scheme these benefits would be limited.

The development would be contrary to the local development strategy. I give this adverse impact some weight as the policies are generally consistent with the Framework where it states that planning decisions should guide development towards sustainable locations. I have however reduced the weight I give to this given that the strategy is not designed to accommodate currently identified levels of housing need. Nonetheless, the development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, and I give this significant weight as the LP policies are largely consistent with the Framework where it states that planning decisions should achieve well-designed places. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and I give considerable 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 as detailed above, including providing much needed housing/self-build housing which would contribute towards the supply and mix of housing and vitality in the area, benefit the local economy from construction works, with future occupiers using some local services and facilities. However, given the small scale 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 and would harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken 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.