Appeal 6001145

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the site address in my banner from the appellants’ case as it is more comprehensive than the abbreviated version on the application form.

In their final comments the appellants refer to an, at that time, undetermined appeal at land south of [site address] Lane (‘the KNL appeal)1. As a decision on that appeal was made on 6 January 2026, and as it considered, amongst other things, the Council’s housing land supply, I gave the principal parties an opportunity to comment on it. I have taken their representations into account.

The scheme before me follows a previously dismissed appeal on the same site (‘the previous appeal’)2, which I refer to in my decision.

The main issue is whether the proposal would represent a suitable location for housing, having regard to the spatial strategy for the area, and the effect on its character and appearance, including on the setting of the [site address] Conservation Area and on listed buildings at [name] and [address].

[site address] is a Rural Village in the fourth tier of the settlement hierarchy, as defined in Policy H1 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 1 (2016) (‘LP1’). As the appeal site lies close to, but outside of, the [site address] settlement boundary, the proposal for two market dwellings does not find support from that policy. 1 APP/F1040/W/25/3368728 2 APP/F1040/W/23/3315984 Appeal Decision: 6001145

However, outside of development boundaries, South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 (2017) (‘LP2’) Policy BNE5 allows development in some circumstances, including at iv) where it would constitute the infilling of a small gap with up to two dwellings within small groups of housing, where it would be in keeping with the character of the area; and at v) where it would not unduly impact on landscape character and quality, biodiversity, best and most versatile agricultural land, and heritage assets. Policies DP1 and DP2 of the Melbourne Neighbourhood Development Plan 2016 to 2028 (2022) (‘the MNDP’) take a broadly similar approach.

The appeal site comprises open grassland, which is located between [address] and further houses on this side of the lane to the north, and No [address] (‘No 34’) and houses to the south. Given that context, and as two dwellings are proposed, I agree with the Inspector who dealt with the previous appeal that the scheme would represent the infilling of a small gap between small groups of housing as envisaged in LP2 Policy BNE5 criteria iv).

[site address] and the adjacent second tier village of Melbourne, offer a range of services and amenities. Thus, future occupants of the proposed dwellings would not necessarily be reliant on the private car for their day-to-day needs, and the dwellings would not be less sustainably located compared to others in the area.

Turning to the character of the area, [address] includes a mix of twentieth century housing and older properties, which are in a range of styles with varying proportions, some of which are set back behind verges or boundary treatment such as stone walls, whilst others are sited closer to the road. The appeal site, which is bisected by a track leading to lower-lying storage buildings and stables, slopes downwards from [address]. Notwithstanding a boundary wall and hedgerow, there are expansive views across the site from the highway to the valley of [name] and the rolling landscape beyond. As a result, the site has a very strong visual connection to the wider countryside.

Other than boundary treatment, much of the land opposite the site on the other side of [address] is open, with former agricultural buildings set around a courtyard close to its southern section, and the [name] listed [name], which is elevated above [address], to the south-west.

Having regard to the statutory list, [name] dates from around 1801 to 1804, and is an imposing two storey red brick building on a stone plinth, whose long principal elevation faces the road. The Grade II listed building at [address] (‘No 32’) dates from the seventeenth century with later additions and is arranged with its gable next to the pavement. It is constructed principally in red brick with stone detailing. Both it, and its modern former garage, which has been converted to the dwelling at No 34, sit on fairly spacious plots. Notwithstanding boundary treatment and landscaping, there are views across these plots from [address] to the countryside beyond. The locality is therefore characterised by the transition from a fairly dense development pattern to the south to a much more spacious, rural character.

The appeal site lies outside, but adjacent to, the [site address] Conservation Area (‘the KNCA’), which notably includes most of the lane in front of the site, as well as No 32 and No 34, [name] and the courtyard buildings. It also encompasses parts of [address] to the south but generally excludes twentieth century housing. Appeal Decision: 6001145

The [site address] Conservation Area Character Statement 2011 (‘the CS’) sets out that [address] follows a ridge, and describes how, particularly beyond its junction with [address], glimpses of the valley and hillsides to the east, along with the presence of a grass verge, emphasize its increasingly rural character and reinforce its connection with the countryside. It describes the farm complex at [address] as largely set apart from the rest of the street within its own large private courtyard, and how both it and the other nearby buildings on the western side of the lane are set above the road and stand picturesquely in the landscape setting of the lane.

Having regard to the CS, the Heritage Statement by TUK Rural Limited, and my own observations, the overall significance of the KNCA derives from its old-fashioned character and historic identity, which was forged in agriculture and was largely untouched by the industrial revolution, with a well-preserved range of historic buildings, strong contrasts between structures and spaces, and high quality views, with connections to the countryside, as the village unfolds.

The proposed dwellings would be set back from [address] on lower lying land and would respect the generally linear pattern of nearby development. Given the topography, each would appear single storey from the highway, but would be two storeys high to the rear. In terms of their form, detailing, individual design, and their materials, which would include brick, sandstone and clay plain tiles, they would respect the area’s diverse building typology.

However, in combination, the proposed dwellings would cover a significant proportion of the site frontage. Although the dwelling on plot 2 could be largely hidden from most streetscene views behind a retained hedgerow, I cannot be certain that the hedgerow would be maintained at any particular height in perpetuity. Moreover, that dwelling would still be visible through the gap around the access, and the proposed dwelling on plot 1 would be clearly seen above the retained low boundary wall. Paraphernalia within the proposed gardens, which could not be controlled by planning conditions, would add to the domestication of the rural scene.

As set out in the Historic England: [name] Planning Note 3 - The Setting of Heritage Assets (2017) conserving or enhancing heritage assets by taking their settings into account need not prevent change. However, in this case, the proposal would erode the sense of transition from the village to the open countryside, which is so important to the locally distinctive character of this part of [address], and to the significance of the adjacent KNCA.

Although the proposed dwelling on plot 1 would be further from the southern boundary compared to the previous appeal, and it would have a narrower front face, the scheme would still result in significant built development, and a partial loss of the view over the countryside from the lane, as well as more angled views from [name]. In that regard there would be a harmful impact on the historic relationship between [name] and its rural hinterland, which would cause moderate harm to the setting of that listed building. However, given the distance of the dwelling on plot 1 to No 32, and the intervening presence of No 34, I am satisfied that that listed building’s setting would not be adversely affected.

I do not have all the details of the planning history for No 34 and the full reasons why the Council granted it planning permission. However, having regard to Sections 72(1) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Appeal Decision: 6001145 Act 1990, whilst I have considered this scheme’s different layout, spacing, scale, profile and detailing compared to the previous appeal, I find that it too would fail to preserve or enhance the setting of the KNCA, and that it would fail to preserve the setting of [name].

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) sets out that, when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight shall be given to their conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to say that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets, or from development within their setting, and that any harm requires clear and convincing justification. Given my findings, the harm to those assets would be less than substantial, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight.

Collectively, and amongst other things, LP1 Policies BNE2 and S1, LP2 Policies BNE5 and BNE10, and [name] DP1, DP2 and HC1 set out that development shall comply with all adopted development plan policies, that it shall protect, conserve and enhance heritage assets and their settings in accordance with the Framework, and that where there would be less than substantial harm this shall be considered against the public benefits of the proposal.

In its favour, the scheme would boost housing supply through the provision of smaller housing units for which I understand there is a particular need, there would be a biodiversity net gain in accordance with statutory requirements, and economic benefits during construction and from subsequent occupation. These are public benefits, albeit modest ones, given the scheme’s limited scale.

Moreover, by reference to the KNL appeal, the Council acknowledges that it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, as required by paragraph 78 of the Framework. In such circumstances, in accordance with its paragraph 11d), and LP1 Policy S2, those development plan policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed to be out of date. However, having regard to paragraph 11d) part i and its footnote 7, the scheme’s conflict with Framework policies which seek to protect designated heritage assets provides a strong reason for refusing the development.

The scheme’s public benefits would not outweigh the harm that it would cause to the setting of designated heritage assets. It would therefore conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole, it does not find support from Framework paragraphs 213 and 215, and it does not benefit from the Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development.

For these reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, including representations from interested parties both in favour and opposed to the scheme, the appeal is dismissed.