Appeal 6001218

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the above banner heading has been taken from the Council’s decision notice as this accurately and concisely describes the proposed development.

The Council’s third reason for refusal as set out on the decision notice relates to protected species. However, the Council’s Statement of Case explains that they no longer wish to defend this reason for refusal after reviewing further information submitted. I do not therefore find it necessary to consider this matter further.

The main issues are: • Whether the location of the site for the proposed development would be suitable in the countryside having regard to local plan policies governing such proposals; and • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site relates to a parcel of land located to the northeast of the village of Hinxton to the south of Cambridge. It comprises open agricultural land, bound by hedging and post and wire fencing to its boundaries. To the direct east is a single private access track providing access to the site from the A1301 which is located further to the southwest.

To the south of the site lies [name] and its associated coach house which are grade II listed buildings, a group of cottages, a residential barn conversion and stables. Open agricultural land lies to the north, east and west. There is also a pumping station to the northeast. The site is located outside of the Hinxton development framework and is in the countryside for planning purposes.

The appeal site received planning permission for the erection of 3 (2no 1bed, 1no 2bed) holiday cottages and change of use and relocation of stables approved by S/3824/17/FUL on the 20th July 20231. This consent whilst not implemented is extant and thus forms a fall-back position which is a material consideration in the determination of this appeal. The proposed development seeks planning permission for the creation of office/R&D units (Use Class E).

Policy S/6 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan, 2018 (LP) sets out the development strategy in relation to the location of jobs in the district. It explains that development in the rural area will be limited, with allocations for jobs and housing focused on [name] and [name], and rural settlement policies providing for windfall development for different categories of village consistent with the level of local service provision and quality of public transport access to Cambridge or a market town.

Policy S/7 of the LP relates to development frameworks and explains that outside development frameworks, only allocations within [name] that have come into force and development for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, outdoor recreation and other uses which need to be located in the countryside or where supported by other policies in the plan will be permitted.

Policy TI/2 of the LP explains that development must be located and designed to reduce the need to travel, particularly by car, and promote sustainable travel appropriate to its location.

The reasons for these policies are to ensure that developments are located in the most sustainable locations with accessibility by a variety of modes of transport and to protect the countryside from encroachment.

As set out, the site is located outside the Hinxton development framework and is in the countryside. It is not allocated for development in any Neighbourhood Plan and is situated approximately 2.5km from the centre of the village of Hinxton. Hinxton is an infill village as defined by Policy S/11 of the LP with very limited services and facilities.

The appellant explains that the modest development proposed provides essential small-scale workspace for R&D, intended for countryside purposes (agriculture and other land based including climate change). I do not dispute the need to support economic growth and that some businesses need to be located in rural areas. However, this is providing it has a need for a rural location and is justified by a business case. I understand that the reference to employment clusters in the LP is in relation to major sites and the reference at paragraph 87 a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is in relation to clusters or networks of knowledge and data-driven, creative or high technology industries. The proposed development is not considered to represent an employment cluster as envisioned by the policies as a result of its small scale and open Class E use. 1 23/00644/FUL

The appellant claims that there are shortages and demand for such units. I do not dispute the growth strategy for such sectors as well as the support of startup businesses but the evidence before me is somewhat generic and broadly based. Its focus is more on the strategic aims about the Cambridge area and is not site-specific relating to the development proposed or this particular location. There is also a lack of detail on the specific business operations and space requirements etc to firmly conclude that there is a genuine specific need and business case for the development to be located in this rural location. It would not therefore comply with the strategy for the location of employment development which should be focused in the most sustainable locations unless there is a specific need for a less sustainable rural location or it is an expansion of an existing business which this scheme is not. Overall, I find the proposed business units are speculative and would have an open Class E use. The proposed development needs to be considered with regards to the specific policy context and material considerations which I have had due regard to in reaching my decision.

Whilst it is acknowledged that there is a presence of businesses in the immediate area, these relate to expansions of existing established businesses and not new businesses.

In terms of sustainability, there is a bus stop in Hinxton but this is some distance away. Service 7A runs from the stop but the services are somewhat limited to 2 busses each day in the morning and one bus in the early afternoon. The village is reasonably accessible by cycling and there is also an opportunity to walk along the private road to the bus stop. However, it is quite a distance and there is no footpath or lighting. This, along with the limited services on offer would dissuade users from walking/cycling this route particularly when travelling to and from work opposed to leisure. Those areas further afield would be more considerable.

There is a cycle route along the A1301 to the petrol station which has a grocery store at a distance of 3.5km and also further along the A505 to Whittlesford railway station at a distance of 4.5km. Again, whilst there is an opportunity to walk along the private road to the A1301 to join to a footpath, this private road has no footpath or lighting. In addition, it is a considerable distance to the railway station.

The nature of the proposed development is materially different to the holiday accommodation use previously granted planning permission and thus is considered under different planning policies. The lack of accessibility to the site by sustainable modes of transport due to the level of service and distance, means that the proposal is not considered to represent sustainable development as it would lead to heavy reliance upon the private motor car to access the site.

My attention has been drawn to improvement works as part of the Wellcome Trust expansion2. While such improvement works along the A1301 are acknowledged, it would not make the development acceptable as users would still need to walk/cycle the unlit private road to the A1301 which is also a good distance which would ultimately dissuade users away from this option. The appellant explains that the proposed use would not lead to an increase in vehicle movements over and above that of the approved use and I have had due regard to the factors put forward in this regard such as weekday operations, hybrid working etc. The Local Highway’s Authority has assessed the scheme and advised that the business units 2 22/03615/REM would result in an intensification of traffic generation. Based on the evidence before me and lack of compelling evidence to the contrary, I would agree with this statement even considering cycle storage measures etc. This is because the uses are materially different to one another where it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed office use would generate more daily comings and goings to that of 3 holiday cottages. The improvement works as part of the Wellcome Trust expansion would not alter this nor would it improve the distance to the village and lack of services.

For the above reasons, I conclude on this issue that the location of the site for the proposed development would not be suitable in the countryside having regard to local plan policies governing such proposals. It would therefore be contrary to [name]/6, S/7 S/11 and TI/2 of the LP.

The appeal site currently comprises open agricultural land and lies within the East Anglian Chalk National Landscape Character Area and The Chalklands Local Landscape Character Area. The main characteristics are a strong rural character with a broad scale landscape of large fields, low trimmed hedgerows and few trees with an open and spacious quality.

The development would be sited in relatively close proximity to existing buildings. It would be modest in scale and single storey in height. It would have buildings with a linear plan form and narrow span in a courtyard layout, and be constructed from traditional timber weatherboarding and slate. This would give the development the character of a group of agricultural buildings which would be appropriate to its location in the countryside.

I appreciate the Council’s concerns regarding the encroachment outside of the existing built-up development into the countryside. However, I am mindful of the extant permission which would allow for the erection of 3 holiday cottages and change of use and relocation of stables to come forward on the land. I have had due regard to the approved plans for that consent which reflect the same external design, layout, dimensions and location to that of the proposed. On this basis, the appeal proposals would be no more harmful to the openness and rural character and appearance of the countryside and landscape character to that of the approved scheme.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore accord with [name]/2 and HQ/1 of the LP which together, amongst other matters, explain that development will only be permitted where it respects and retains, or enhances the local character and distinctiveness of the local landscape and of the individual National Character Area in which it is located. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also accord with paragraphs 135 and 139 of the Framework relating to achieving well-designed places. A lack of harm in this respect would not outweigh the other harm I have identified.

As set out earlier, [name] and its associated coach house are located to the south of the appeal site. These are grade II listed buildings. I therefore have a statutory duty under Section S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It requires special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. I have also had regard to paragraph 212 of the Framework which states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

The main significance of [name] and its associated coach house are their historic character and appearance and rural setting. The site is situated a good distance from [name] and is separated from the grounds by a group of cottages, a barn conversion and a tree belt. The development is considered to preserve the setting of these listed buildings and would not result in harm to the significance of heritage assets.

I appreciate that pre-application discussions may have taken place with the Council, but this is informal advice only and not binding. It would not therefore alter my findings on the above main issues.

The proposed development would provide public benefits in the form of the provision of office/R&D business units and jobs. It would also provide energy efficiency measures, renewable energy features and soft landscaping. I also note matters relating to biodiversity enhancement. The benefits of the development are not considered to outweigh the identified harm.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. There are no material considerations, either individually or in combination that would outweigh the identified harm and associated plan conflict. I conclude that the appeal is therefore dismissed.