Appeal 6001534

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for outline application (some matters reserved) for the phased development of up to seven serviced plots for self-build and custom housebuilding, at [site address] , grid reference: Easting 492633 Northing 319922, in accordance with the terms of the application reference S25/0977, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The application form indicates that the proposal was made in outline with all matters reserved, except access. I have considered the appeal on this basis. As such, I have taken the submitted layout and landscaping plans, including drainage details to be indicative only.

Within the Statement of [name] (SoCG) the main parties agree that the emerging South Kesteven Council Local Plan Review (ELP) should carry only limited weight due to its stage of preparation. I have no reason to disagree, and in any event, it was confirmed at the hearing, that neither main party sought to rely on material within the ELP.

An executed and signed planning obligation was submitted during the course of the appeal, dated 11 March 2026. I have had regard to this below.

At the hearing, the appellant submitted late evidence, an appeal decision relating to the [address], [address], Whitburn, SR6 7BF1. The Council raised no objection to my accepting this evidence. All parties present at the hearing were provided with a copy and were afforded the opportunity to consider and comment on it. Also at the event, the Parish Council presented a 1 APP/A4520/W/25/3365110 – [address], [address], Whitburn, [postcode] . photograph of standing water on [address]. Again, those present at the hearing were afforded the opportunity to consider and comment on this photograph. I will return to this late evidence below.

At the hearing, the Council stated that the road to the east of the appeal site is [address], not [address], as indicated on the submitted plans. I was unable to confirm this at my site visit. For the purposes of this decision, I have used the road name as advised by the Council.

Following a discussion about the Council’s suggested list of conditions, I invited the main parties to submit an updated list of agreed conditions by the 1 April 2026. I have taken this additional correspondence into account in reaching my decision.

On the 21 April, the main parties forwarded an updated position from [name] (AW) on the capacity of the [site address] [name], as well as further comments on the wording of the suggested foul drainage condition. I have taken this further representation from AW and the comments from the main parties into account, as it is material to this appeal, in terms of reaching a robust and reasoned decision. So as to ensure procedural fairness, I have also consulted the Parish Council on this further representation, as the Parish Council had previously commented on this matter.

The Council’s decision notice included two refusal reasons, the second relating to a lack of sufficient information relating to the disposal of foul water and the implications of this, given capacity constraints within the [site address] [name] (WRC). As part of the appeal submissions, the appellant provided details of a non-mains drainage option for foul water, albeit this drainage strategy was confirmed to be indicative only. In response to my pre-hearing note, the Council stated that it remained concerned that the developer would maintain a legal right of connection to the WRC, even if the proposal were subject to a condition which required details of the means of foul water disposal to be approved by the Council. If this issue were resolved, the Council confirmed that it would no longer seek to defend this second refusal reason. This position was maintained at the hearing.

Subsequent to the close of the hearing, AW updated its position in relation to the capacity of the [site address] WRC and the Council’s correspondence stated that AW had confirmed that they would not object to a current planning application in respect of foul water capacity. However, this information was received at a very late stage and the further representation from AW did not formally remove its objection to the appeal scheme. Consequently, I consider it appropriate to retain this matter as a main issue in this appeal. As such, the main issues are: a) The effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area, b) Whether the proposal is capable of providing satisfactory arrangements for foul water drainage disposal, and c) The benefits of the proposal and the weight to be afforded to them.

The appeal site comprises part of a field, which is presently overgrown, to the north of Moor Lane, on the northern edge of the village of [site address] . An existing field gate is located to the southeast corner, which crosses a field ditch. Mature hedging and a large tree are located to the site’s southern boundary, with further hedgerows to the east and west. Opposite the site to the south, is an existing residential estate. To the east is an extension to the village cemetery, and allotments. Open fields extend to the west, north and further east, albeit, some agricultural and commercial units are located nearby to the northeast.

I heard [site address] described as a nucleated village. It has a traditional historic core centred around [address] and [address]. However, the village has been extended in more recent times, including to the north, along [address], [address] and [address]. The village is identified within the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2011- 2036, January 2020, (LP) as a ‘Larger Village’. LP policy SP1 states that larger villages will provide a supporting role in meeting the development needs of the district. LP policy SP2 states that development proposals which promote the role and function of these larger villages, and will not compromise the settlement’s nature and character, will be supported. There is disagreement between the main parties as to whether the proposal complies with LP policy SP2 or not.

LP policy SP4 states that development on the edge of settlements such as [site address] , will be supported provided that essential criteria a) to f) are met. There is disagreement between the main parties as to whether the proposal complies with criteria b) and d) or not. Criterion b) requires that development is well designed and appropriate in size/scale, layout and character to the setting and area. Criterion d) requires that development does not extend obtrusively into the open countryside and is appropriate to the landscape, environmental and heritage characteristics of the area.

There is also disagreement between the main parties as to whether the proposal complies with LP policies DE1 and EN1 or not. Collectively and amongst other matters, these policies require that new development makes a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness, vernacular and character of the area, by ensuring that proposals do not have an adverse impact on the streetscene, settlement pattern, or the landscape/townscape character of the surrounding area, having regard to Landscape Character Assessment.

According to the South Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment, January 2007, (LCA), the appeal site lies within the [name], a medium scale undulating mixed farming landscape dissected by its rivers. Key characteristics include a relatively unified, simple, medium-scale agricultural landscape, with a high proportion of historic woodland, undulating landform, picturesque villages of local limestone, a dispersed, nucleated settlement pattern, with enclosure mostly by hedgerows and hedgerow trees. The LCA indicates that landscape sensitivity to new residential proposals is likely to be medium to high, because of the high proportion of valuable landscape elements and relatively undisturbed character.

I agree with the appellant’s landscape consultant that in considering the appeal site, a number of factors reduce its sensitivity to new development. The appeal site itself is not within agricultural use at present, and so it is not typically representative of the open agricultural landscape, albeit it remains open in character. Additionally, the site’s surroundings are less sensitive given the presence of housing, commercial activity, the cemetery and allotments.

At the hearing, the Council clarified its position in relation to this first main issue, by confirming that it was not alleging wider landscape and visual harm, but that their concern was more localised, more specifically, how the proposal would relate to the urban form of the village and its rural setting, particularly when approaching along Moor Lane and [address]. However, the Council did accept that a scheme for 7 units would be an appropriate size and scale of development for this village.

[site address] has no defined settlement boundary, and there is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal site is located on the edge of the village. The Council accepted at the hearing that it is reasonable to expect that LP policy SP4 would result in development extending the built form into the countryside. However, the Council pointed to the explanatory text of this policy at paragraph 2.13, which states that in all cases, ‘the site must be well located to the existing built form, substantially enclosed and where the sites edge is clearly defined by a physical feature that also acts as a barrier to further growth (such as a road). The proposal should not visually extend building into the open countryside’.

While not actively farmed at present, the appeal site is open and undeveloped, with mature hedgerows and field ditches to its boundaries. As such, it exhibits some of the key characteristics of the [name], features which give the appeal site a rural quality. While an extension to the village cemetery and allotments are located to the immediate east, built features within these neighbouring land uses are low level, small scale, and lightweight in appearance, and they are largely screened behind hedging. As such, while these neighbouring uses do not represent the simple agricultural form of surrounding fields, they do retain a sense of openness. When viewed in context with the characteristically open land to the north, west and further east, the appeal site is appreciated as part of the rural countryside setting to [site address] .

Nevertheless, the appeal site is also seen with the built form of the village, where housing extends for a substantial distance along Moor Lane, on the opposite side of the road. This has an urbanising influence, as do the large commercial units to the northeast. While these commercial units are separated from the settlement by open fields, they remain in reasonably close proximity to the village, and they are a prominent feature when approaching the village from the north.

While matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are reserved, the introduction of seven dwellings at the appeal site would introduce substantial built form onto characteristically open land to the north of the village. This would have an urbanising impact on the site itself, and it would erode the contribution the appeal site presently makes to the rural setting of the village. Notwithstanding this finding, the rural setting is expansive and the appeal site would represent only a modest encroachment into it.

Further, the depth of the site to the north would not be significant, extending in line with the cemetery and allotments to the east. The projection of the site to the west, along Moor Lane, would be far less than the existing housing estate to the opposite side. The submitted layout plans, albeit indicative, suggest a linear arrangement of houses along Moor Lane, which would reflect the layout of housing opposite. Consequently, while the proposal would introduce built form to the northern side of Moor Lane, it would not comprise an obtrusive extension into the open countryside.

The indicative layout suggests that the proposed housing would line Moor Lane in a similar manner to the existing housing opposite, and it would be seen with it when approaching from the east, west, or north. While scale and appearance are reserved matters, the appellant’s [name] indicates that each unit would be limited to 1.5 storeys, whereas existing housing opposite the site is a mix of single and two storeys. As such, while I accept that Moor Lane itself presently defines the built-up urban edge of the village, the modest extension comprising the appeal scheme would not appear incongruous in this context.

Additionally, the illustrative Landscape Strategy Plan suggests that the mature hedgerow to the south boundary of the appeal site and the existing large tree within it, would be retained, as would the more maintained hedgerows to the east and west boundaries. Supplementary planting is proposed to the east boundary, and at the proposed access point, with a new hedgerow proposed to the north boundary. There would be space to provide further new planting to individual plots. This retained and suggested landscaping, which would be fully considered at the reserved matters stage, could serve to soften the appearance of the built form, to provide a softer edge and transition to the remaining countryside, ensuring that the proposal would not appear overly prominent.

The available evidence suggests that the traditional form of [site address] has already altered as a result of extensive residential development to the north of the village. Housing constructed at [address], [address] and [address] has extended the village sizeably to the northwest. While the appeal scheme would not reinforce the nucleated form of the traditional parts of the village, a relatively short arrangement of linear development to the north of Moor Lane reflecting the linear arrangement of existing housing opposite the site, would not be out of character with the form of the settlement as it now exists. The Council would have the means to control the layout and appearance of the development at the reserved matters stage, so as to ensure that the proposal makes a positive contribution to local distinctiveness, vernacular and character of the area.

Drawing these points together, the proposal would be well located to the existing built form, although it would represent an encroachment of the built form into the rural countryside setting around [site address] . While retained and proposed landscaping would define the site’s edges and soften the appearance of the built form, providing a softer transition to the wider countryside setting, it would not fully mitigate the harm resulting from this encroachment. Nor would physical features act as a barrier to future growth.

Nevertheless, the adverse impact resulting from this harm to the rural setting of the village would be localised, limited to the site itself and its immediate surroundings, and the encroachment would be a modest one given the size of the site compared to the expansive rural setting of the village. As such, while there would be harm to the landscape character of the area, that harm would be limited. The proposal would not appear incongruous or obtrusive having regard to the form of the settlement as it now exists.

Turning to visual impacts, the proposal would be visible to those travelling along Moor Lane, [address], and [address], as well as by visitors to the neighbouring cemetery, gardeners in the allotments, people enjoying the surrounding public rights of way, and to residents of nearby houses. In this respect, I note the message relayed by the Parish Council that residents of [site address] have expressed some concern at development extending into open views to the north of the village, albeit there has been only one representation made by the public raising objection to the proposal.

The proposal would be most visible when approaching from the east or west on Moor Lane itself, and to those residents facing the appeal site along Moor Lane. While the introduction of a more substantial built form into the open views north of Moor Lane would be a notable change for receptors from the existing undeveloped field, these receptors would also have an awareness of the existing housing to the south of Moor Lane, and in some views, the commercial units to the northeast. The substantial hedgerow to the southern site boundary would screen and soften this change to an extent, albeit this would not be so effective for receptors approaching from the east or west, given the reduced height of the hedgerows to the eastern and western boundaries. Nevertheless, the proposal would take up only a portion of these open views to the north of the village, and the impact would be localised. On this basis, and having found that the proposal would not be out of character with the growth of the village, I consider that these visual impacts would be minor.

When approaching from the north along [address], the topography is undulating. The proposal would be seen with the backdrop of the existing village which sits on the skyline, while the commercial units to the northeast of the site would appear in the foreground, screening the proposal at some points in the approach. In closer range views, hedgerow and intervening vegetation would further filter views. Consequently, in these views, there would be limited visual impact on receptors. In longer range views from public rights of way to the north, west and east, again, the proposal would be seen with the edge of the village and any visual impact would be limited.

To conclude on this first main issue, I find that the proposal would have an acceptable relationship to the urban form and settlement pattern of [site address] , and so it would not appear as an incongruous and obtrusive extension of built form into the open countryside. Nevertheless, there would be some landscape and visual harm resulting from the modest encroachment of the built form into the countryside, which would adversely impact on the character and appearance of the rural setting of the village. While localised and limited in extent, this harm to the character and appearance of the area would conflict with LP policies SP2, SP4, DE1 and EN1, the requirements of which have been set out above.

AW originally objected to the proposal on the basis that the WRC lacked the capacity to accommodate the additional foul water flows that would be generated by the proposed development, leading to a deterioration in water quality in the receiving watercourse, and an unacceptable risk of breaching environmental standards at the WRC. Consequently, at the hearing, there was a significant level of discussion on the position of AW, its role and responsibilities as statutory undertaker, whether a non-mains drainage solution would be achievable as an alternative means of foul water disposal, and whether this was in fact a planning matter, or subject to control under separate pollution control regimes.

However, since the close of the hearing, I have been provided with a further representation from AW. This provides an updated list of their water recycling centres, along with details of how AW will approach planning applications for residential development in each catchment from April 2026 to March 2027. This indicates that their approach at the [site address] WRC will be to recommend approval, albeit this is caveated. Within this further representation, AW do not specifically remove their objection to the appeal scheme. Nevertheless, in light of this representation, the Council has confirmed that its suggested foul drainage condition, put forward in response to the appellant’s non-mains drainage option, need not now refer to the submitted drainage strategy and the prioritisation of an on-site solution.

The PPG explains that a condition prohibiting development or linked aspects such as occupation until a specified action has been taken, such as the provision of supporting infrastructure, should not be used where there are no prospects of the action in question being performed within the time limits imposed by the condition2.

[name] have considered the original concerns of AW and the reports from the Parish Council that tankers are being used to remove waste from the [site address] WRC, the further representation from AW suggests that the prospect of connecting the appeal scheme to the WRC is likely. If this is not possible, then the Council does not dispute that an alternative non-mains drainage option could be achieved. While interested parties expressed concern at a package treatment plant ultimately discharging to the field ditches, particularly at times of low rainfall, the appellant’s drainage consultant expressed confidence that an appropriate scheme of non-mains foul drainage could be delivered. From the available evidence, I have no reason to take a contrary view.

Considering the very recent in position by AW, which is limited to a particular time period (April 2026 to March 2027), and noting the life of any planning permission, the imposition of a condition to secure the final means of foul water disposal seems reasonable and necessary. This would afford the Council control over the finalised scheme, given that the Water Industry Act 1991 would otherwise confer a statutory right to connect to the public sewerage system.

Subject to the imposition of such a condition, the proposal would be capable of providing satisfactory arrangements for foul water drainage disposal. Consequently, I find no conflict with LP policies EN4 or EN5. The former seeks to minimise pollution and where possible contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, while the latter requires that proposals demonstrate that adequate foul water treatment and disposal already exist, or can be provided in time to serve the development.

In order to support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, the Framework highlights the importance of providing a sufficient amount and variety of land where it is needed. The Council cannot presently 2 Paragraph: 009 [name]: 21a-009-20140306 demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land, the published figure3 stands at 4.07 years, a shortfall of 872 dwellings. This is not an insubstantial shortfall. The Framework recognises that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and so while the appeal scheme is modestly sized, the proposal would nevertheless make a small but positive contribution to the Council’s supply of housing land, in a location which the main parties agree is accessible.

The proposed 7 dwellings would provide for self-build and custom housebuilding. At paragraph 63, the Framework requires that in the context of establishing housing need for different groups in the community, the groups considered should include those people wishing to commission or build their own homes. The PPG recognises that self-build or custom build housing helps to diversify the housing market and increase consumer choice4.

Under the [name] and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, local authorities are required to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in the area for their own self-build and custom housebuilding. They are also subject to duties of that Act, to have regard to this, and to give enough suitable development permissions to meet the identified demand.

The PPG advises that the level of demand is established by reference to the number of entries added to an authority’s register during a base period. At the end of each base period, relevant authorities have 3 years in which to permit an equivalent number of plots of land, which are suitable for self-build and custom housebuilding, as there are entries for that base period5. The PPG also recognises that the demand data from registers in an area, may need to be supported as necessary by additional data from secondary sources, in order to understand and consider future need6.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the Council has not delivered sufficient permissions to meet this duty. The SoCG confirms that the Council’s latest published position on this matter is set out within the Authority Monitoring Report, dated December 2025. I have not been provided with a copy of this document, but the parties agree that this shows that there are 222 individuals and 3 grounds (totalling 11 plots) currently on the Council’s self-build register and that the Council has consented 11 dwellings specifically identified as self-build plots. The SoCG describes this as a persistent statutory duty failure. From the available evidence, I have no reason to disagree.

I heard from the appellant that during base period 8, which ended in October 2023, 8 individuals were added to the register, and the 3-year period within which this requirement needs to be met, would be before the end of this year. The appellant advised that the appeal scheme would deliver 87.5% of the requirement of this base period. This evidence was not contested by the Council. Therefore, it appears that the appeal scheme would go a considerable way in terms of delivering the number of plots required for this base period alone, notwithstanding the total demand. 3 South Kesteven District Council Five [name], ([name] 1 April 2024), March 2025 4 Paragraph: 16a [name]: 57-016a-20210208 5 Paragraph: 023 [name]: 57-023-201760728 6 Paragraph: 011 [name]: 57-[phone]

There is dispute between the main parties as to the weight to be afforded to the delivery of housing generally, and more specifically self-build and custom housebuilding plots as a social benefit of the proposal. I cannot agree with the Council’s position as explained at the hearing, that because the proposal would make only a modest contribution to the overall shortfall for self-build and custom housebuilding plots, that this matter should be attributed only limited weight.

Even if I were to put aside the evidence from the appellant which suggests that the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding plots is likely to be higher than the register suggests, given the acknowledged persistent failure of the Council to deliver a sufficient number of plots to meet the demand on the register, and the contribution that the appeal scheme would make to meeting the demand for base period 8 in particular, which must be met later this year, I consider that the delivery of this scheme of up to 7 self-build and custom housebuilding plots, in the particular circumstances of this case, should be afforded significant weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

Additionally, the proposal would deliver economic benefits during the construction phase, including through the employment of local builders and tradesmen, which could assist in sustaining and creating employment and training opportunities. I have had regard to the uncontested evidence provided from the Right to [name], which suggests that the local economic outputs for self-build and custom housebuilding are more than double that of conventional housing building models, and the data relating to the value of construction spending on the economy as a whole. Further, it is reasonable to expect that future occupiers would help to sustain the existing services and facilities within [site address] .

I have had regard to the numerous appeal decisions provided by the appellant, and I acknowledge that in one case7 at least, the economic benefits associated with the construction of a single self-build plot was awarded significant weight. The appellant suggests that this was on the basis of similar evidence provided in support of this proposal. However, the economic benefits during construction would be temporary only, which to my mind, limits the weight I can afford to this as a benefit. Overall, I afford the economic benefits moderate weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

I have also been provided with information which suggests that self-build and custom housebuilding have lower energy consumption usage and CO2 emissions than wider new build comparators. Additionally, a [name] is provided with the appeal scheme, which is intended to inform the approach of individual plot owners at the reserved matters stage. This includes a number of sustainable construction and renewable energy measures, and measures to minimise energy and water usage. [name] can be secured as an approved document. Additionally, the Council suggests a condition requiring details of how each plot will be energy efficient, maximise renewable energy use, and be as water efficient as possible. As such, while there remains some uncertainty as to the extent to which these measures would be incorporated into the individual plots, it is reasonable to afford them some weight as environmental benefits of the proposal. 7 APP/F2415/W/24/3340441 & APP/F2415/W/24/3340449

Interested parties, including the Parish Council, have raised a number of other matters, not covered by the above main issues. On street parking is permitted on Moor Lane and while some vehicles may have to wait to allow other vehicles to pass, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that this is causing a highway safety issue. I have no reason to consider that the appeal scheme would not be able to deliver adequate off-street parking for future occupiers, and so I have no reason to suspect that on-street parking would increase significantly as a result of the proposal. The appeal scheme is modestly sized and neither the Council nor Highway Authority has raised any concerns with any increased use of Moor Lane as a result of the proposal.

Reference has been made to flooding on the appeal site and Moor Lane at times, although I have been provided with no substantive evidence of this. At the hearing, I was presented with a photograph of standing water on [address]. However, I was not provided with any detailed information relating to when this photograph was taken, why the road was subject to standing water, or whether this is an ongoing issue. The appeal site lies within [name] 1, land which is at the lowest probability of flooding, and neither the Council, nor the Local Flood Authority has raised any concerns in this respect. Full details of the means by which surface water from the proposal would be managed can be secured by the imposition of a suitable planning condition.

As the appeal is made in outline with all matters reserved except access, it is not necessary at this stage to consider the appearance of the proposed dwellings in the context of houses on Moor Lane. This will be a matter for the Council to consider at the reserved matters stage.

While other sites in the village may have been allocated for housing development within the LP, it remains the case that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land and the appeal scheme must be considered on its individual planning merits.

Reference has been made to the potential for National Grid to put pylons over the site, and the danger that this would represent to future residents. However, I have been provided with no details of any definite plans by National Grid to undertake such work and the Council does not raise this as a concern. As such, this does not justify dismissing the appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, I have no reason to reach a different conclusion to the Council on these other matters.

The appellant has submitted a planning obligation under section 106 of the Act, in the form of a [name]. The Council has confirmed that it is content that the planning obligation secures the proposed development as serviced plots for self-build and custom housebuilding. Having considered the planning obligation, I have no reason to disagree.

Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) (CIL Regulations) and paragraph 58 of the Framework, set out three tests that planning obligations must meet.

I am satisfied that the obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms to secure the development as self-build and custom housebuilding, to which I have afforded weight in favour of the proposal. That the proposed development is secured as self-build and custom housebuilding is also necessary because it is on this basis that the Council has accepted the proposal as exempt from the requirements of biodiversity net gain. It is directly related to the development proposal and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. I am therefore satisfied that the planning obligation would meet the requirements of the CIL Regulations and the Framework.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

I have found that the proposal would be capable of providing satisfactory arrangements for foul water disposal in accordance with LP policies EN4 and EN5. I have also found that the proposal would have an acceptable relationship to the urban form and settlement pattern of [site address] , and so it would not appear incongruous or obtrusive. Nevertheless, I have identified some landscape and visual harm resulting from the modest extension of the built form into the countryside, which would adversely impact on the character and appearance of the rural setting of the village. Consequently, there would be conflict with LP policies S2, SP4, DE1 and EN1, and conflict with the development plan when read as a whole.

Nevertheless, the Framework is a material consideration. There is no dispute between the main parties that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, and that paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged. The main parties agree that the spatial policies which are most important for determining the proposed development are out of date, LP policies SP2 and SP4. However, at the hearing, the Council clarified its position in this respect, indicating that this extended to the locational requirements of these policies, and not criteria b) and d) of LP policy SP4 on which the Council relies.

The Council’s spatial strategy supports growth at the edge of larger villages, and the appeal site is located on the edge of such a village. So, in terms of the spatial location of new development within the district, the proposal is not in conflict with these policies. However, LP policies SP2 and SP4 also require that these edge of settlement sites relate well to the character and landscape setting of these villages.

The appellant’s view was that because LP policies SP2 and SP4 are spatial policies which direct the location of development, the criteria therein cannot be considered in isolation, but must be considered within the context of a spatial policy, and in the absence of a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, these policies should be considered out-of-date in their entirety, and afforded reduced weight. However, the requirements of criteria b) and d) are not inconsistent with the Framework, which requires that new development adds to the overall quality of an area and is sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. It is in this respect that I have identified conflict with LP policies SP2 and SP4.

However, even if I were to accept the appellant’s position with regards LP policies SP2 and SP4, conflict would remain with the development plan, with regards to LP policies DE1 and EN1, for similar reasons. Insofar as these policies are relevant to the proposal, they are generally consistent with the Framework.

Nevertheless, the harm to the character and appearance of the area would be localised and limited in extent. Consequently, I afford conflict with the development plan only limited weight, in any event.

The application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance as set out in footnote 7 do not provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Therefore, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The Council confirmed at the hearing, that with regards to the specific paragraphs identified within footnote 9, it was concerned only with paragraphs 135 and 139 of chapter 12. I have no reason to disagree. The proposal does not involve major development, it does not involve a main town centre use, and the site is not isolated. I agree with the main parties that the site is accessible, and I have no reason to consider that an appropriate balance of built form and landscaping, along with a well-designed development, could not be secured at the reserved matters stage.

As there would be some encroachment of the built form into the rural setting of the village, I have identified some harm to its landscape setting. While adverse, this harm would be localised and limited. These adverse impacts do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits which I have identified above, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Therefore, in the circumstances of this particular case, there are material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

The Council suggested a number of conditions, in the event that the appeal is allowed. These conditions were discussed at the hearing, and a revised list was provided by the main parties after the event. I have had regard to these conditions in light of the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on the use of conditions. I have made some revisions in the interests of clarity and to ensure compliance with the Framework. The comments of the main parties have been sought in respect to these changes.

I have imposed standard conditions relating to the commencement of development (1), submission of the reserved matters (2), and the approved plans (3), in the interests of certainty. The requirement for the submission of the reserved matters has been amended to relate to any individual phase or plot forming part of the development, as I heard from the appellant that a separate reserved matters application would be made for the communal areas including the private access, in addition to each individual plot.

I have also imposed a condition to clarify what is meant by a ‘prominent feature’, as referenced within the approved [name], for the avoidance of doubt and to secure a coherent development in the interests of the character and appearance of the area (4).

I have imposed a condition requiring details of existing and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels to be submitted for approval as part of any reserved matters application relating to layout and scale (5). These details would influence the overall height of the development, which is sensitive, given the location of the proposal at the edge of the village.

A condition is necessary to secure the recommendations of the [name], dated 20 May 2025, to minimise impacts on biodiversity (6). As this includes measures for new planting, it is appropriate to require this information as part of any reserved matters application for layout and landscaping.

I have imposed a condition requiring a Construction Management Plan and [name] to be submitted for approval (7), to ensure that any impacts of the construction phase are adequately managed. This is a pre-commencement condition in relation to any phase or plot, as these details would need to be secured before any construction work begins. A detailed list of the matters to be approved is not necessary to make this condition precise or enforceable, so it has been removed. The main parties can agree on the most suitable method of compliance based on best practice at the time of discharging the condition.

A condition is necessary to secure the management of surface water, in order to minimise flood risk (8). This does not need to address the construction stage as this would duplicate the Construction Management Plan. For the reasons discussed above, a condition is also necessary to secure a suitable means of disposal of sewage (9). Finally, a condition is necessary to secure sustainable building measures (10), given the requirements of LP policies SB1 and SD1.

A condition requiring the details of materials as part of any reserved matters application regarding appearance is unnecessary. External materials are one of the aspects of a building that determines its visual appearance and so they should form part of any application seeking approval of appearance at the reserved matters stage.

A condition requiring details of bat and bird boxes/bricks for each dwelling is not necessary given that the [name], dated 20 May 2025, discusses the provision of such measures, and proposed condition 6 secures the submission of a [name] and Enhancement Plan based on the recommendations of this document.

I have not found it necessary to impose a condition restricting the development to a maximum of seven dwellings. [name] have considered the case law8 referred to by the Council, the outline permission is the planning permission, and it will therefore permit that which is contained in the description of development. The description of development includes ‘development of up to seven serviced plots for self-build and custom housebuilding’, seven serviced plots being the maximum. As this is specific in relation to a particular number of plots, then that amount of development will be permitted. The definition of ‘custom and self-build plot’ within 8 I'm Your Man Ltd v SSE & [name] [1999] 4 PLR 107 the planning obligation clearly relates to a dwelling, singular. It is not necessary to impose such a condition to define what is permitted, because the permission itself does so properly.

In response to my pre-hearing note, the Council indicated that two conditions recommended by the Local Highway Authority would be unnecessary due to controls under other legislation (the Highways Act). I have no reason to disagree. I also heard from the Council that having considered the existing use of the appeal site, conditions relating to the potential for land contamination were not considered necessary. Again, I have no reason to disagree with the Council on this matter.

For the foregoing reasons, having had regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission or two years from the approval of the last of the reserved matters, whichever is later.

Details of the following reserved matters shall have been submitted to the local planning authority for approval within three years from the date of this permission: i. layout; ii. scale iii. appearance iv. landscaping Approval of all the reserved matters for any individual phase or plot forming part of the development shall have been obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development on that individual phase or plot is commenced and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans: i. Location Plan re. 630.LP.01 received 27 May 2025 ii. Proposed Site Highways Review re. B-25-0012/HY01 received 27 May 2025 iii. [name] (May 2025)

Any application for the reserved matters must be in accordance with the approved [name] and [name] ([name] 2025). As per Paragraph 5 of Section 5.9 of the aforementioned document, any reserved matters relating to the scale and appearance of a dwelling shall include within the design a prominent feature. For the purposes of this condition, a prominent feature is defined as the use of buff brick or stonework, red facing brick or render (or a combination thereof) to the front elevation.

As part of any application for reserved matters relating to the layout and scale of any individual plot, plans showing the existing and proposed land levels of the site, including site sections, spot heights, contours, and the finished floor levels of the proposed dwelling with reference to the adjoining highway, shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Before any dwelling hereby permitted is occupied, the finished floor levels for that dwelling shall have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

As part of any application for reserved matters relating to landscaping or layout, a [name] and Enhancement Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be based upon the recommendations of the [name] dated 20 May 2025 and it shall include a plan identifying the location of any mitigation and enhancement measures, along with a detailed schedule (and technical details as relevant) for each of the measures proposed. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development of any individual phase or plot shall commence until a Construction Management Plan and [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority for that individual phase or plot. The approved Construction Management Plan and [name] for that individual phase or plot shall be adhered to throughout its construction period.

Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, a scheme for the management of surface water drainage shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted scheme must: i. Be based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development. ii. If infiltration drainage is proposed this should be based on an agreed groundwater monitoring regime detailing any seasonal variations in groundwater level. iii. Provide flood exceedance routing for storm events greater than 1 in 100 year. iv. Where necessary, provide details of how run-off will be safely conveyed and attenuated during storms up to and including the 1 in 100 year critical storm event, with an allowance for climate change, from all hard surfaced areas within the development into the existing local drainage infrastructure and watercourse system without exceeding the runoff rate for the undeveloped site. v. Where necessary, provide attenuation details and discharge rates which shall be restricted to the existing runoff rate, and vi. Provide a Maintenance Plan including details of how the scheme will be maintained and managed for the lifetime of the development, including any arrangements for adoption by any public body or [name] and any other arrangements required to secure the operation of the drainage system throughout its lifetime. No part of the development shall be occupied until the approved scheme has been completed or provided on site in accordance with the approved phasing. The approved scheme shall be retained and maintained in full, in accordance with the approved details.

No above ground works on any plot shall commence until a scheme for the disposal of sewage from the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This scheme shall include details of any requirements for long-term management and maintenance. No above ground works on any individual plot shall commence until details of how this individual plot will connect into the approved scheme for the disposal of sewage, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme for the disposal of sewage and managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

No development above damp-proof course shall take place on any individual plot until a detailed scheme demonstrating how the proposed dwelling for that plot would comply with the requirements of Policies SB1 and SD1 of the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2011- 2036, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted scheme shall include details of how carbon dioxide emissions would be minimised through the design and construction of the building, and details of water efficiency. The sustainable building measures shall be completed in full, in accordance with the approved scheme, prior to the first occupation of the dwelling to which the approved scheme relates.