Appeal 6001110

The appeal is dismissed.

During the application, the description of development was amended. However, this was corrected in the Statement of [name] to be: Outline application accounting for a) the addition of 21 dwellings constituting 10 [name] (incorporating 4 X 2bed house; 3 x 4bed house; 3 x 5bed house), 5 [name] (Annex 2 qualifying) Units (incorporating, 2 x 2bed house ; 3 x 2bed bungalow) and 6 x 3bed bungalow serviced plots for self-build and custom housebuilding, b) hedge removal to facilitate creation of the access and c) demolition of stable block, all matters reserved except for access. I have therefore determined the appeal based on this description. In particular, apart from the details of the access, I have only had regard to the indicative layout insofar as it relates to the likely effect of the proposal on the matters set out in the main issues.

The Council’s Statement of Case clarified that it does not seek to defend the fifth sentence of its first reason for refusal about access to services. The main issues in this appeal are therefore: • whether the proposal would be consistent with development plan policies relating to housing in rural areas, and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, including regarding the area of separation between [site address] and [name].

The site concerns a large area of land to the south and west of ‘The Causeway’, a large replacement dwelling which fronts on to [site address] . The site does not adjoin the built-up area or ‘settlement boundary’ of [site address] , which is designated, together with [name], as a Selected Rural Village under Policies SS1 and H1 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011-20311 (HLP). To its north, it is separated from the [site address] by a large paddock of land; and to the northeast by The Causeway, land around it, and the carriageway of [site address] . The site is therefore not visually or physically connected to the settlement and is situated within the countryside between the villages.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be consistent with development plan policies relating to housing in rural areas, as the appeal site would not adjoin the existing or committed built up area of the village. Accordingly, it would conflict with the aims of HLP Policy GD2. The site’s location beyond the settlement boundary of [site address] would also result in conflict with Policy H2 of the East Langton Neighbourhood Plan Review2 (ELNP). Furthermore, given the nature, scale and location of the proposal, it would not be for any of the types of housing permitted in the countryside by HLP Policy GD4, so would conflict with it. Character and Appearance

Apart from a stable block, the site is generally open and undeveloped, so has the appearance of paddock land. The perimeter of the land is delineated by a varying extent of mature hedgerows and trees, which offer some containment to the site. It is situated within National Character Area 94: [name], which is characterised by sparse settlement of small villages with little modern development and a network of quiet green lanes linking rural communities and a remote, sometimes empty character. At a more local level, the site is identified in the Harborough District Landscape Character Assessment (2007) as being within the ‘High Leicestershire Landscape Character Area’, which repeats analysis of the form of settlements.

[site address] is historically a village formed of distinct clusters of larger properties and other buildings around the junctions of [address] and [address] close to the Green; [address] and [site address] ; and at [address]. Beyond this, linear development has extended north either side of [address]. On its west side modern houses front the road but are set back behind generous gardens. Opposite is the old school, and a group of houses occupy its former playground, being accessed from [address]. Undeveloped spaces and planting in the village are closely associated with, or alongside, the route network of [site address] , so they bleed into the village. These are spaces that are accessible, such as the greened entrance to the Church and the Green. They are also between or behind buildings, with large homes such as The Old Rectory including walled gardens. Despite being enclosed by walls, there is still a strong sense of planting due to the size of the trees behind. 1 [name] 2019. 2 The front cover still refers to it as [name] 2011-2031, the review concluded in 2022.

East of [site address] is [address], a relatively large loop of homes with dual access, further east of which is the more modern [address]. The dwellings within that development do not project any further south but are accessed by a long meandering route through a swathe of open grassed land featuring a pond. Opposite this, immediately north of The Causeway, the Council has granted permission for two homes.

The homes to the east of the village have therefore established primarily in three separate developments. These differ in terms of their layout and spacing to the looser clusters of buildings found to the west and they do not incorporate or have the same relationship with spaces found to the north and west of the village.

Notwithstanding the presence of existing and proposed homes fronting [site address] and [address], there have been limited incursions between these routes. The presence, or not, and the nature of nearby built forms therefore helps to distinguish between different parts of the site’s surroundings, including the character and appearance of [site address] . This includes the impact of land use interactions and management, such as the gardens of The Causeway and agricultural influences on the countryside. Nevertheless, the roughly triangular area of land between these routes has remained generally undeveloped and shares common characteristics with the other parcels of land to the east and west.

The site also lies within an Area of Separation (AoS) between the villages of Church and [name], as designated by ELNP Policy ENV6. The supporting text to this policy states its aim is to ensure that the distinct character and identities of these two villages is maintained.

Accordingly, while the site is separated from the settlement by land adjoining to the north, its open and undeveloped characteristics make an important contribution to the rural edge of [site address] , including in the views available from the public right of way (PRoW) over fields to the east. Taken with the historic interaction between clusters of built form, spaces and planting in the village, these factors all give rise to a clear and distinct pattern of development, notably north and west of [site address] . Hence, while the site is not covered by any landscape designation that would suggest an increased value or sensitivity, given these factors, it would be reasonably sensitive to change.

The design concept for the indicative layout of the site is based on the supporting evidence base, including in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), Design and [name], [name], and Heritage Statement (HS). These generally fix the position of the proposed green spaces to the north and south of homes sitting at the site’s centre. The proposed cluster would be considerable in size in relation to the development west of [site address] . The inclusion of spaces north and south is laudable but means the central area of homes would likely have a closer affinity to the layout of [address] and [address], rather than the clusters it is seeking to emulate. Moreover, apart from [address], the routes through the village generally lead somewhere else. The proposal would be an insular scheme that would be connected to the village only by public footpath, not by the highway leading into it. It would be divorced from the village route network.

The spaces that predominate are integral to the grain of development in the village and lie between development along the routeways. In contrast, the indicative relationship with the proposed green spaces within the site would be somewhat contrived. Rather than providing a connection to the established character of the village, they would physically isolate it.

The indicative layout also shows the homes to be sited away from the site’s southern boundary and bungalows would be positioned to the north and centre of the site, and there would be space for structural planting within the site, including at its perimeter to address Ash Tree Dieback. Despite these considerations, the coverage of built form within the site means the proposal would be a prominent and urbanising feature within the countryside beyond the village. Moreover, it would likely be evident through the access and over and through planting, from the village routes and from the PRoW over fields to the east of [site address] , particularly in winter months when planting is not in leaf.

Accordingly, I cannot agree with the findings of the LVIA regarding the magnitude of the impact of the proposal, as it would amount to an atypical expansion and suburbanisation of [site address] that would have a significant and intrinsically harmful urbanising effect.

A biproduct of the separation of settlements is coalescence. While ELNP Policy ENV6 does not define this, the glossary in the HLP suggests it equates to the merging or coming together of separate towns or villages to form a single entity.

The development of the site would reduce the separation between Church and [name], and it would be harmful to the identity and character of [site address] . However, to users of the landscape, the villages would not appear to coalesce, and [site address] would remain discernible and divisible from [name]. This includes when moving between them, in views from the southeast and east, and in terms of the sense of arrival and departure from [site address] .

From a spatial perspective, [address] is a logical extension to [address], but the built form within that development is highly prominent in its surroundings, including from the PRoW. Similarly, the inclusion of green space physically connecting it with [site address] avoids buildings in the AoS. However, the space does not compare visually with the form and interaction of those within the village described above. The proposal would evidently be less prominent, but the prominence of [address] and its relationship with the green space at its entrance do not provide justification for the harm that I have identified above.

For the above reasons, the proposal would have a significantly detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, which would be contrary to the aims of HLP Policy GD8 to achieve a high standard of design. In terms of the AoS, the language of ELNP Policy ENV6 is different from ENV1 in that the former says development will not be supported, whereas the latter says will not be allowed. Hence, while ENV6 does not preclude development in the AoS, the proposal would, nevertheless, conflict with it. However, the magnitude of this conflict would be limited, as the proposal would not undermine the overall aims of the policy concerning the functional reasons for the AoS.

The evidence refers to two [name]* listed buildings in [site address] , known as Church of [name] ([name]: 1061497); and The Old Rectory (1061500), along with its [name] (1360752) which is [name] listed. Numerous other [name] listed buildings are also referred to in the parish, known as ‘[name] at [name] with Barn, Stables and Outbuildings’ (1061439), ‘[name] to North of [name] (1061440), ‘[name] (1061498), ‘[address]’ (1061499), ‘The Hollies’ (1189679), ‘[name] (1189704), ‘The Bell Inn’ (1360750), The Former Hanbury Schools with [name] (1360751), ‘[address]’ (1360765), and ‘ [site address] [name] (1437759). The listed buildings draw significance from their settings.

The HS is reasonable and proportionate for the proposal and the site does not contribute to the settings of the buildings due to their distance from the site and the presence of planting and changes in topography between them. The evidence before me does not lead me to conclude differently in this regard. As such, the proposal would not affect how the buildings are understood or experienced in their respective contexts. With cognisance of the statutory duty referred to in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the settings of the buildings would be preserved and there would not be harm to their understanding or significance as designated heritage assets. In this respect, the proposal would therefore accord with HLP Policy HC1 and ELNP Policy DBE1.

The main parties agree that the Council is not able to demonstrate five years of deliverable housing land supply and therefore [name] H1 and SS1 are out-of-date for the purposes of housing supply having regard to the Framework. Hence, the presumptions in Framework Paragraph 11(d)(ii) and HLP Policy GD1 apply to the proposal, albeit the latter does not explain the key policies of the Framework to have regard to in making this judgement. Development Plan Consistency with the Framework

Policy GD2 of the HLP is supportive of development adjoining existing or committed built-up areas of [name] such as [site address] . This provides for housing to meet identified needs, the redevelopment of buildings and land, and for more housing to be built than a settlement’s minimum housing requirement, provided this is not disproportionately exceeded. While it does not afford full flexibility to the development of the location of housing, it needs to be read together with the other policies that direct the locations of housing.

In that regard, HLP Policy GD4 provides local interpretation of most of the criteria outlined in Framework paragraph 84; and for small sites of no more than four dwellings for local needs housing within or physically and visually connected to settlements. The remaining criteria are referred to in other policies of the HLP.

In isolation of other considerations, reference to development outside of settlement boundaries would not be wholly aligned with the more flexible and balanced approach implicit in the objectives outlined in the Framework. Similarly, given the Council’s housing predicament, development will inevitably need to take place beyond existing settlement boundaries to meet current and future housing needs. However, taken together, the policies provide scope for a wide range of housing development proposals in such circumstances.

The principal type of housing schemes not catered for are those for four or more dwellings, that are not based on local needs and do not adjoin or are physically and visually connected to settlements. To my mind, this does not fundamentally undermine the continued relevance of such an approach, particularly as the policies seek to direct development to appropriate locations in relation to the settlements, which would protect the countryside from unsuitable development.

This differs only slightly from the aim in the Framework to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. There is therefore still a clear rationale for settlement boundaries in the HLP to protect the countryside while focusing growth within or alongside designated settlements. I have therefore regarded the underlying objectives of the policies, as being consistent with the Framework.

My assessment of the policies therefore leads me to conclude that the conflict with [name] GD2 and GD4 should be attributed substantial weight. I also afford substantial weight to the conflict with HLP Policy GD8, as it is a policy that is consistent with the design aims of the Framework.

At the Hearing, the Council confirmed its emerging plan is likely to be submitted for Examination in April 2026. However, given its policies have not yet been tested through the examination process and there may be unresolved objections to its policies or evidence base, I am only able to give limited weight to its policies.

For the purposes of the provision of housing in the HLP, Church and [name] are paired together in HLP Policy H1. A minimum of 30 new homes was indicated to be provided during the HLP period to 2031. However, twenty homes have been provided, so the minimum identified housing requirement remaining of ten dwellings has been addressed through allocations identified in ELNP Policy H1. This provides greater certainty of the suitability of two sites for development but does not preclude other sites from being developed in accordance with other development plan policies. As such, it does not undermine the delivery of housing in the parish or district.

ELNP Policy H2 refers to revised settlement boundaries for East and [site address] , which were altered when the ELNP was reviewed. The policy indicates development on sites within the settlements will be supported, subject to compliance with other policies. Outside the boundaries the policy refers to three types of appropriate development, including rural exception sites, as well as schemes that comply with local and national planning policies.

The aim of the boundary as stated in the supporting text is to protect the villages from unsustainable development proposals, while ensuring there is sufficient land available to meet residential and commercial need in the right locations. The ELNP does not therefore undermine the intentions of the development plan or conflict with the aims of the Framework regarding the location of development, including in the countryside.

I have already referred to the aims of ELNP Policy ENV6 in the second main issue and the AoS is clearly important to the character of the parish, but the main parties agree the policy does not preclude development in the AoS.

There is evidently not a specific Custom or [name] (CSBH) policy in the ELNP. The CNB Insights Housing Needs Survey which identifies need in the Parish was not considered in the [name], as it wasn’t submitted through the Regulation 16 consultation process. Other evidence before the [name] also did not provide certainty regarding the need for specific plots to be allocated. Nevertheless, ELNP policies provide sufficient flexibility to enable CSBH to come forward through site allocations or on other sites as informed by local need. The ELNP is therefore not preventing sites for housing, including CSBH, coming forward in the designated area. Indeed, the two homes granted permission north of The Causeway are for CSBH plots.

I therefore afford substantial weight to the conflict of the proposal with [name] ENV6 and H2. [name] of the Proposal

At the time of the Hearing, the main parties agreed the Council can demonstrate 3.1 years of deliverable housing land. Despite favourable [name], the Council accepts that there has been a general downward trend in housing completions since 2021/22 for market and affordable housing.

The Council is currently determining applications for a significant quantum of homes in the district. While this could help to remedy under delivery through the plan period, the homes cannot form part of its supply until permissions are in place. That was not the case at the time of the Hearing. Smaller and medium-sized schemes could be on site sooner to contribute to housing delivery but, of those applications, the Council were not currently determining any full applications for more than 50 homes. Industry evidence and appeal decisions before me refer to lead-times for sites and demonstrate that outline schemes are not likely to be on site for some time. Even if sites alluded to by the Council were to come forward sooner, this would be in a different period of supply, which would have moved along, with a new [name] establishing the latest position.

The shortfall in supply remains significant and the evidence before me does not demonstrate that this is likely to be remedied anytime soon. While the site is small, its size means it could be built-out relatively quickly, so it could make an important contribution to meeting the Council’s unmet need. Accordingly, I afford substantial weight to the provision of homes.

The 2015 Act3 places a statutory duty on the Council to meet demand arising from its [name] across the district for CSBH, and the Council has not issued enough permissions for serviced plots to meet this requirement. It therefore has a shortfall significantly greater than 100 permissions required. HLP Policy H5 seeks a percentage allocation but only on schemes greater than 250 dwellings, so there 3 Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016). will be many schemes of lesser magnitude where plots are not guaranteed to be provided. Hence, I afford substantial weight to the provision of six plots for CSBH, which would be secured by the Section 106 legal agreement (S106), as it would help the Council to meet its statutory duty and address unmet demand.

The current shortfall in the delivery of affordable housing (AH) is significant, being more than 800 homes. The provision of five [name], being discounted at least 30% on the [name], would therefore make a modest but, nevertheless, important contribution to meeting the prevailing unmet need for AH. I therefore afford this substantial weight as a benefit of the scheme.

The S106 would also secure the provision of specialist housing, age restricted to persons 55 years or over, which the Council has evidence of demand for. While the indicative layout plan suggests these plots are also identified for CSBH, there is no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate less than significant weight should be afforded to this benefit.

Collectively, the mix of housing types promoted by the proposal would also help to promote social inclusion and attracts moderate weight as a benefit.

The evidence before me indicates that there are salient reasons for attributing significant weight to the impact of the development of the site in supporting economic growth, particularly in respect of CSBH; and separately to the provision of an ambient heat network, which would be controlled by the S106, and other [name] referred to in the appellant’s Planning Statement. Notwithstanding this and the ability for the final scheme to meet design codes, the overall effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings and its conflict with the development plan means it would not be possible for the proposal to satisfy Framework paragraph 139.

The S106 also controls the delivery of onsite open space and makes provision for a sum for its maintenance. Similarly, there would be improved footpath links through the development. As these could benefit existing residents of the parish, I afford them each moderate weight as social benefits of the scheme.

In addition to those matters covered above, the S106 also includes provisions for contributions to be made towards Post 16, Secondary and Primary education, all with designated buildings, successors or sites within measurable walking distance; for healthcare to develop one or more designated surgeries under the [name] ([name], Leicestershire and Rutland Integrated Care Board); community facilities in [site address] or [name]; for improvements to [name]; a [name] for provision of waste receptacles; for travel packs for residents of the scheme; towards offsite open space for allotments, accessibility improvements to the countryside, and cemetery or other burial sites; and for offsite sports facilities in the form of playing pitches locally.

I am satisfied that, along with the other provisions listed above, all the obligations meet the tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the Framework. Moreover, they are directly related to the development because they are proposed to mitigate against the local impact of the proposal on infrastructure and services. They are also reasonable in scale and kind, as they are informed by the latest evidence as to what would be required to provide mitigation. Nonetheless, except where I have indicated otherwise above, as the obligations can only mitigate against the proposal, I afford them limited weight as benefits associated with it.

Whilst there are a greater number of supportive comments to the proposal, I have not undertaken any form of balancing exercise to the number or content of the correspondence with negative or supportive comments towards the scheme. This has therefore not had a bearing on the determination of the appeal.

There are a wide range of stated benefits that have been attributed substantial and significant weight to moderate and limited weight. Against these I have afforded substantial weight to the conflict with the development plan in relation to housing in rural areas and its effect on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, including regarding the AoS. The absence of harm to nearby listed buildings and accordance with the development plan weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

As the presumption outlined in Framework paragraph 11 applies, and there is conflict with the ELNP, Framework paragraph 14 requires that two criteria should apply for the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the ELNP to be able to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Firstly, as the ELNP was reviewed in 2022, it remained part of the development plan within the five-year period before the date on which the decision was made. Secondly, having regard to the evidence before me and advice in the PPG4, ELNP Policy H1 is a policy that includes allocations to meet the remaining ten dwellings of the minimum identified housing requirement derived from the HLP. This is not affected by the omission of a policy in the ELNP to directly secure the provision of CSBH plots. Consequently, despite the nature and magnitude of the stated benefits, my finding in relation to Framework paragraph 14 is that the adverse impacts of allowing the development which conflict with the ELNP significantly and demonstrably outweigh these.

This differs fundamentally from the situation in the case in Rutland5, where the relevant neighbourhood plan (NP) did not make any allocations to meet its housing requirement. In addition, although I note the inspector’s findings in the Hinckley and Bosworth6 case, the evidence that was referred to in that case is not before me, so I am not able to make a reasonable determination as to whether the circumstances before that inspector are comparable with the appeal before me.

In Swale7, the decision refers to the up-to-date housing need at the time of the appeal, not what this amounted to when it needed to be considered when the relevant NP was independently examined. Even so, conflict with the policies of the NP was not to the same extent as in this appeal, so it is not comparable with the appeal before me. 4 Paragraph: 097, [name]: 41-[phone], Revision date: 09 05 2019. 5 Appeal Reference: APP/A2470/W/23/3323586 - Land east of [address], [name], [postcode] . 6 Appeal Reference: APP/K2420/W/24/3351678 - [address], Burbage, Leicestershire [postcode] . 7 Appeal Reference: APP/V2255/W/24/3350524 - Land at [address], Faversham, Kent [postcode] .

It is not clear from the decision at Horsham8 whether the inspector was referred to other housing policies of the development plan, but the description of the policies outlined in that decision does not provide sufficient clarity for me to determine whether Horsham’s development plan provides the same level of flexibility as the HLP and ELNP, particularly in relation to unallocated sites. The harms associated with the scheme before me and the weight I have afforded the conflict with development plan policies also mean this balance is not skewed as it at Horsham.

Turning to the test required by Framework paragraph 11(d)(ii), having regard to the key policies of the Framework referred to in Footnote 9, the proposal would accord with paragraphs 66 and 110 in terms of the provision of affordable housing and the location of development to limit the need to travel. Nevertheless, the proposal would fail to maintain the area’s prevailing character or be sympathetic to this or its history, including surrounding built environment, as required by Framework paragraphs 129 and 135. I have found above that the proposal would also not adhere to paragraph 139 in this regard. Accordingly, while there is a longer list of benefits, several of which have been afforded substantial weight, 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. In particular, while it is unclear when the Council will be able to address its housing shortfall, the appeal scheme would undermine the plan-led approach to the extent that housing should not be provided at all costs. Similarly, while the test in HLP Policy GD1 is not as thorough as that in the Framework, the proposal would fail the criterion 3 and the same conclusion would be reached. Consequently, the proposal would not represent sustainable development.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.