Appeal 6001540

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved apart from means of access. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis, treating the illustrative site plan as being indicative.

It was requested that I view the site from the neighbouring property of [address], [address], and I was able to do so on my visit.

A draft revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published [name] 2025 subsequent to the submission of this appeal. I raised this matter at the Hearing but the parties indicated that they had no further comments on this matter.

The Council is in the process of preparing a new Rutland Local Plan 2021-2041. Due to the stage of preparation of the emerging Local Plan, both parties agreed at the Hearing that limited weight should be given to this document, and I note that no policies of the emerging Local Plan are referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal.

A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) has been submitted which secures the dwellings as self-build and custom build housing. The UU meets the tests set out in the Framework and I have had regard to it accordingly.

Following the Hearing, the appellant provided a copy of a recent Appeal Decision relating to self-build dwellings off Braunston Road1 elsewhere in the Council’s area. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/A2470/W/25/3373786 Both of the main parties have had the opportunity to comment on this, and I have had regard to the responses made.

The Council’s second reason for refusal related to the impact of the proposal on trees. Following the submission of additional documentation with the appeal, the Council has confirmed that the impact on trees at the site is capable of being mitigated subject to suitably worded planning conditions. The second reason for refusal has therefore fallen away.

The Council’s fifth reason for refusal related to the lack of a Section 106 Agreement (S.106) to secure the provision of self-build units on the site. A signed and completed UU to that effect was submitted prior to the Hearing, and it was agreed that the fifth reason for refusal also falls away.

On that basis, the main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • Whether the proposal would be an effective use of land, with due regard to affordable housing; and • Other considerations relevant to the planning balance.

The appeal site includes an enclosed field located on the edge of the village of Manton. The proposed access would lead from [address] via an access and turning area to the north of this field. The site is outside but immediately adjacent to [name] of Development (PLD) as set out in the development plan, and is bounded by residential development to the east and the Horse and [address] to the south across a narrow lane.

To the west of the site is [address] which extends from [address], the latter of which provides a legible western boundary to the built extent of the village. That said, there are elements of development to the west that dilute the open countryside character, including vehicle parking, an animal welfare centre and the cemetery. Nevertheless, these elements appear as peripheral development on the edge of the settlement rather than being part of the built extent of the village.

The northern boundary of the field is defined by a fence and hedgeline. The evidence suggests that this hedgeline is a relatively recent feature, although a vestigial tree-line set at an angle in close proximity to the north indicates that there is a historic boundary of a similar location and extent as the hedgeline. Even allowing for variations in the current and historic boundary, these reflect the strong northern boundary of the village defined by the boundaries extending to the east, including the curtilages of built development.

There is a tree close to the western boundary of the site which is covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and which would be retained. A copy of a [name] which covered a group of trees on the western and southern boundaries has been submitted, although the Council confirmed at the Hearing that this TPO has lapsed. The Council also emphasises that [address] and the part of [address] adjoining the site are distinctly transitional in nature, with substantial boundary hedgerows. Nevertheless, I note that the Council has confirmed that the impact of the development on trees within the site is capable of being mitigated by planning conditions and I consider that this would also address concerns relating to the potential loss of hedgerows.

The Rutland Circular recreational route passes the site along [address] as well as some distance to the north, and I saw that this route was popular with walkers and cyclists.

The appeal site is located within study parcel MAN4 of the Rutland Settlement Landscape Sensitivity Assessment 2023 (RSLSA) which identifies this parcel as having a high sensitivity to housing development. However, the site is located on the western boundary of the parcel, and the RSLSA states that “the western fringe of the parcel which lies outside the Rutland Water Area the proximity to the indented PLD and enclosing influence of [address] and the wooded railway cutting does afford a non-typical area of enclosure and reasonable juxtaposition with the built extent of Manton, and modest, well-designed development within that area may have limited harmful impacts on the wider landscape qualities of the parcel or historic settlement form”.

The appeal site is also located adjacent to parcel MAN3 of the RSLSA, which states “Approaches from the north on [address] are significantly less urbanised and offers a more characterful rural and pastoral entry to Manton past the Cemetery and as far as the public house”. This description equally applies to the appeal site to the east of [address] within MAN4.

In respect of the proposed extent of development within the enclosed field, the trees and planting along the southern and western boundaries would provide a high degree of screening of development in views from [address] and the public realm within the village. However, as I observed on my visit, when these are not in leaf they would enable glimpsed views of development within the site. That said, existing views of the site from [address] include the context of the large dwelling of [address] in an elevated position as well as the [address] and nearby built development. In views from [address], a well-designed development within the field would appear as a logical extension to the settlement.

When approaching the site from the south, development within the field would be viewed within the context of the built extent of the village to the east of [address] and the [address] with a substantial 2-storey veranda. When viewed from the north, including views along [address] and from the recreational route, it would be viewed within the context of the built extent of the village, including [address], the rear of the public house and nearby built development. Within that context, residential development within the enclosed field would be viewed as a logical extension to the village.

The appeal site would be readily visible to residents of [address], but the property would retain an open aspect to the north. Subject to the consideration of the design of the proposal and separation distances from [address] at the Reserved Matters stage, I do not consider that the effect on the outlook from [address] would be sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission.

The sloping topography and the raised ground level of the field compared to adjacent highways would increase the prominence of built development within the field. The proposal may also involve a degree of earthworks or levelling of the field. But even then, I do not consider that the extent of the proposal within the enclosed field would be an unacceptably obtrusive feature within the context of the village or the surrounding landscape. Although the proposal would introduce built development onto a rural field, when viewed within the context of the village and the landscape the visual impact on the area of this element of the proposal would be limited, and would reflect the minor/moderate visual impact effect as referred to in the appellant’s LVIA2.

The appeal site is also visible from the veranda of the [address]. However, the boundary planting of the appeal site provides a degree of screening of the development, and subject to consideration of the layout and design at the Reserved Matters stage I consider that a view of the landscape beyond the appeal site would still be available from the veranda. On that basis, the potential effect on the outlook from the veranda does not weigh against the proposal.

However, the proposed access would project beyond the northern boundary of the enclosed field, and would be viewed as the projection of development into the countryside beyond the settlement edge. It would use an established field gate access off [address], which would be formalised and widened to enable the simultaneous 2-way flow of traffic into the site, as well as providing access to nearby fields. Flexible access surfacing would be used for the initial part of the access leading from [address], although final details of hard surfacing will be subject to future approval. The access would lead to 2 separate accesses for each dwelling arranged around an existing tree.

The existing field gate access is of an understated rural appearance, which complements the countryside character of the area to the north of Manton and forms part of a legible pastoral boundary along [address]. In contrast, the design of the proposed access would be of a contrived suburban character projecting into the countryside beyond the existing and historic field boundaries as well as the clear northern boundary of the village. The significant widening of the access would also diminish the agricultural character of the field boundary running along [address], with commensurate significant harm to the appreciation of the countryside setting of the village for people passing along the lane. The use of design features such as estate railings would do little to mitigate for the unacceptable urbanising effect of the proposed access.

The proposed access would also be located opposite the entrance to the cemetery. Although the cemetery is a man-made feature, the location of the proposed access opposite the entrance would lead to significant harm to the appreciation of the countryside setting of this important community feature.

The proposed access would be clearly associated with the proposed built residential development. There are other accesses and associated features along [address], but these are viewed as peripheral to the village rather than establishing a context for an access to a residential development. For the reasons given previously, the proposed access would be an obtrusive and urbanising feature projecting into the rural landscape beyond the logical extent of the settlement. This would be an incongruous feature within the context of residential plots along this part of the northern edge of Manton where vehicular access is 2 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (October 2025) taken from roads within the settlement. Within that context, I am also mindful of the importance of [address] for users of the [name] recreational route passing to/from the village and the appreciation of its pastoral setting. I therefore conclude that the proposed access would lead to significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Drawing the above together, I conclude that the proposal, and in particular the proposed access, would lead to significant harm in respect of the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the design and landscape character requirements of Policy CS19 of the [name] 2011 and Policies SP15 and SP23 of the Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document 2014 (SAPDPD). The proposal would also conflict with the Framework in respect of achieving well-designed places.

Policy CS10 of the [name] requires development on sites of more than 0.3 Hectares within villages such as Manton to achieve a density of 30 dwellings per hectare. The Council sets out that the appeal proposal represents a density of approximately 4.2 dwellings per hectare which is significantly below that required by Policy CS10.

However, Policy CS10 also refers to the character of the surroundings and other design principles of Policy CS19 which relates to promoting good design. Manton includes plots with a mix of housing densities. This includes a number of plots with a single dwelling set in a large curtilage, particularly to the north of [address] and [address]. Conversely, Manton also includes areas of housing at a higher density, such as the area to the south of [address], which also set a context for the development of the site. When viewed on plan within the context of the village, it would therefore appear that a higher density than that proposed could be achieved on site whilst still reflecting the character of its surroundings.

However, the site is subject to a number of constraints as indicated in the design Code submitted by the appellant. This includes the protection of trees and hedgerows along the southern and western boundaries as well as achieving a suitable separation distance from [address]. A significant proportion of the site area also consists of the access north of the field boundary which I consider is not a suitable area for built development. These constraints are reflected in Policy CS19 which refers to adjoining landscape features and matters of amenity including overlooking and visual intrusion.

I am also mindful that the proposal is for self-build and custom housing which typically consists of detached dwellings, which reduces the flexibility of achieving higher densities associated with other forms of residential development such as open market housing.

On the basis of the above, the proposed development of the site for 2 self-build and custom build dwellings would be an effective use of the land, even given the significant shortfall compared to the density requirements of Policy CS10. Within the terms of the [name] Statement3, the proposal would not be an arbitrarily low density as the proposed layout is justified by the circumstances of the site and the type of housing proposed. 3 [name] for Housing Development, January 2025

As set out in the Council’s fourth reason for refusal, sites of 6 to 10 dwellings in villages are liable to pay an affordable housing commuted sum. The proposal would provide 2 dwellings and therefore falls below this threshold. Policy SP9 of the SAPDPD states that the Council may refuse development proposals which seek to under-develop sites in a way that is likely to reduce the affordable housing contribution. However, for the reasons stated previously, I consider that the development of the site for 2 self-build and custom dwellings would not represent an arbitrary under-development of the site. It may be possible to increase the density if other forms of housing were proposed, such as open-market dwellings. But given the constraints of the site I am not persuaded that other forms of housing would result in a number of dwellings that would trigger the threshold for affordable housing. The Council was also unable to confirm at the Hearing what number of dwellings it considered the site could support.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would not be an arbitrarily low density of development, and I am not persuaded that it would be under-development of the site in respect of affordable housing. The proposal would therefore not conflict with Policy CS10 of the [name] regarding housing mix and density having regard to design principles, and would also not conflict with Policy SP9 of the SAPDPD with regard to the provision of affordable housing. The proposal would also not conflict with the Framework in respect of making effective use of land.

The appellant submits that a substantial benefit of the proposal is the delivery of 2 Self-Build and [name] plots. In support of this, the appellant contends that the Council has failed to meet its statutory duty in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. This places a legal duty on local authorities to keep a Register of individuals and groups who want to acquire serviced plots of land. The Council has a statutory duty to meet the demand arising from those on the [name] within three years of the end of defined base periods.

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) has amended the 2015 [name] and Custom Housebuilding Act, including at Section 2A(5a) which states that “Regulations may make provision specifying descriptions of planning permissions or permissions in principle that are, or are not, to be treated as development permission for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding for the purposes of this section”. To date, these Regulations have not been published. However, since late 2024, the Council has required legal agreements to secure the provision of self and custom build plots. The Council sets out that this is in response to best practice and the findings of appeal decisions following the changes of the LURA.

In respect of whether the Council has met its statutory duty, the appellant has referred to 3 scenarios. Scenario 1 is based on if there is some evidence that an application is for self or custom build, it has been taken to contribute towards meeting demand. Scenario 2 applies the requirements of the LURA amendments that only applications that explicitly state within their material to be for self or custom build should be counted. Both of these scenarios initially identified either an outstanding current need for self or custom build plots in relation to [name] 7 or an accumulated shortfall. However, on the basis of current supply figures provided by the Council, the appellant agreed at the Hearing that the Council had met its statutory duty under both scenarios.

A third scenario was based on an Appeal Decision at Ribchester Road4 which addressed the recent LURA amendments. The Inspector concluded that “...it is no longer reasonable to count extant outline planning permissions as meeting the definition unless they have a mechanism attached to them to secure the development is restricted to self-build and custom housebuilding”. Applying the [address] principle, the permissions which do not secure self-build and custom housing by legal agreement would no longer count towards meeting the demand arising from the Register. This would lead to a significant shortfall in the number of permitted plots compared to the Register, meaning that the Council would not have met its statutory duty.

However, the Regulations have not been published, and the Council indicated at the Hearing that the LURA amendments are in effect silent on whether they are to be applied retrospectively. The explanatory notes to the LURA also explain that this amendment was made “to ensure that only planning permissions that are specifically to be built out for self or custom build (for example via a planning condition or obligations) qualify towards meeting demand.” (my emphasis). To my mind, the reference to these being ‘examples’ means that the description of planning permissions that are to be treated as for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding is yet to be determined.

The main parties agree that [name] self-build exemptions are not a sufficiently robust method of recording permissions to meet Register demand. However, the Council sets out that it has undertaken a review of all permissions in 2024 to ensure that they were genuinely for self-build or custom housing, and it emphasises that many have been completed and occupied by the original applicants or are in progress on that basis.

Given the evidence before me, I consider it would be unreasonable to rely on as yet unpublished Regulations to disregard permissions granted by the Council which are not subject to a legal agreement. For this reason, I do not propose to adopt the same approach as the [address] Inspector as a means to demonstrate that the statutory requirements are not met. For the purposes of this appeal, I am content that the Council has met its statutory duty based on Scenarios 1 and 2.

Notwithstanding the statutory duty, the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) states that awareness of the Right to Build legislation is low, with 83% of people unaware that the local authority self-build registers exist. As a result, the number of individuals on a local authority’s self-build register may underestimate demand. The appellant refers to secondary sources of data such as polling and market research which indicates that demand for self-build and custom housing could be significantly higher than that shown on the Council’s Register. However, I consider that the figures referred to by the appellant are aspirational rather than representing genuine demand. Also, as the Council has met its statutory duty then there may be some surplus in supply compared to the Register.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the demand may exceed that indicated by the Register, and on the basis of the evidence before me I give the provision of 2 self-build and custom dwellings moderate weight in favour of the appeal. This reflects paragraph 73(b) of the Framework which states that local planning authorities should seek opportunities to support small sites to come forward for self-build and 4 Appeal Ref: APP/T2350/W/23/3335737 custom build housing. This also reflects the conclusions of the [address] Appeal Decision which sets out that even if the Council is meeting its statutory duty then the provision of additional plots weighs in favour of the proposal.

In respect of wider housing supply, the main parties agree that at best the Council can only demonstrate a 3 year housing land supply, which is a significant shortfall. The Council accepted at the Hearing that there would also be a shortfall in housing land supply under the emerging Rutland Local Plan which has been submitted under transitional arrangements. Nevertheless, the contribution of 2 dwellings towards housing supply would only be modest. Although the main parties agree that the dwellings would be sustainably located in terms of access to services and transport, the contribution to wider housing land supply would be of no more than moderate weight.

With regards to economic benefits, the appellant refers to the construction stage of the development including opportunities for local builders, tradesmen and builders merchants as well as local employment and training. They emphasise that self-build and custom housing can generate more than double the economic benefits of conventional housebuilding models. However, even on those terms, the benefits arising from the construction of 2 dwellings would be modest and for a limited period, and would therefore carry only moderate weight. I have had regard to the Langton Hall5 Appeal Decision referred to by the appellant where the economic benefits of a single self-build plot were awarded significant weight in the planning balance. However, I note that varying weights regarding the economic benefits of self-build dwellings have been given by Inspectors in other Appeal Decisions referred to by the appellant. On that basis, the conclusions of the [name] appeal do not lead me to a different conclusion on this benefit of the proposal.

Residents of the proposal would support services and facilities in the village, but given the number of dwellings proposed and the likely number of residents this would be of only limited benefit.

The social benefits referred to by the appellant relate to meeting unmet housing need, and I have addressed these matters previously.

The appellant emphasises the environmental benefits of the scheme, and particularly the improved performance of custom and self-build housing compared to wider new build housing and the principles set out in the [name]. However, even given those considerations and the climate emergency declared by the Council, the environmental benefits would primarily address the impacts of the development itself, and given the scale of the development the environmental benefits carry only limited weight in favour of the appeal.

The appellant has provided a number of Appeal Decisions in support of their case. However, these vary from the circumstances of the appeal before me on matters including whether the Council had met its statutory duty, the number of self-build dwellings and the weight given to various considerations in each appeal. In any event, I have determined this appeal on its own merits. 5 Appeal Refs: APP/F2415/W/24/3340441 & APP/F2415/W/24/3340449

The Council’s Questionnaire indicates that the appeal site affects the setting of a number of Listed Buildings, and I have had regard to the submitted [name] and supporting evidence. I am also mindful that the appeal has been submitted in outline and the effect of the proposal on the setting of the Listed Buildings would be considered further at the Reserved Matters stage. The Council has not identified any harm arising to the setting of these designated heritage assets, and on the basis of what I have seen and read the proposal would preserve the setting of these Listed Buildings, subject to consideration of the Reserved Matters.

Notwithstanding my conclusions regarding the effective use of land, I have concluded that the proposal would lead to significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the development plan and the Framework when read as a whole in respect of achieving well-designed places.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites and on that basis the ‘tilted balance’ of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged with regards to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole having particular regard to key policies.

I have had particular regard to the key policies referred to in Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework. Although the proposal would be in a sustainable location and would make effective use of land, it would not secure a well-designed place and would not provide affordable homes; however the lack of affordable home provision does not weigh against the development for reasons stated previously.

Considered individually and cumulatively, the benefits arising from the proposal would carry no more than moderate weight compared to the significant harm in respect of the character and appearance of the area. The adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole and the key policies. The proposal would therefore not represent sustainable development.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that outweigh this conflict. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

The No. 14 (Land to the North of [address]) Tree Preservation Order 2023.

Update of self-build permissions including those subject to S.106 agreements and [name].

Recalculation of Scenario 2, [name].

Site visit route.

Copy of Appeal Decision Ref: APP/A2470/W/25/3373786 relating to self-build dwellings off [address], and comments from the main parties (including Appeal Ref: APP/A2470/W/25/3375563 - [address] provided by the Council).