Appeal 6001563

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the address of the site from the Council’s Decision Notice, which better reflects the location than that used in the application form. The appellant has used the same address within their appeal statement and so I am satisfied that no party would be disadvantaged as a result.

The planning application is made in outline with details of access provided for consideration at this stage. All other matters, namely appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, are reserved for future approval. I have therefore treated the submitted indicative site plan as illustrative in respect of the layout and scale of the proposal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a grassed field adjoining [name], a detached dwelling which lies at the edge of the village of [site address] . The land is bounded on all sides by hedges and trees and there is an existing vehicular access onto [address] situated in the southwest corner of the field. A public right of way runs along the western boundary from [address] northwards.

Although Policy SP2 of the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2011-2036 (adopted January 2020) (the Local Plan) does not define a settlement boundary for the larger village of [site address] , the appeal site clearly lies beyond the built-up extent of the village. It is generally free from development and retains an open, verdant, rural character which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The presence of boundary vegetation does not preclude land from forming part of the open countryside.

I acknowledge that the design, layout and density of the scheme are for consideration at reserved matters stage. Nonetheless, the appeal proposal would extend development out from the current extent of the built form of the village into open countryside. The visual impact of the proposed dwellings, including their associated access, parking and other inevitable residential paraphernalia, upon the rural appearance of the site would be considerable. Even allowing for boundary hedging and a degree of enclosure of the site, the development would nevertheless contrast markedly with the adjoining open fields on both sides of [address] and would be prominently perceived on the rising approach from the east and from the public right of way within the site. Consequently, residential development in this location would result in a marked and harmful erosion of the pleasant rural character of the site, and that of the surrounding area.

Policy SP4 of the Local Plan supports edge-of-settlement development only where its specified criteria are met. In respect of criterion SP4(a), it requires support from the Parish Council. The proposal accords with this requirement. Policy SP4 envisages that some developments will come forward on the edge of settlements and, therefore in many cases, in the countryside.

However, in this case, although detailed design and layout are reserved matters, and the number of dwellings is only fixed to a maximum figure, the proposal including the size of the application site introduces built form significantly beyond its current extent. Given this, and my concerns raised above, even in principle, it would extend built form harmfully and obtrusively into the open countryside. It would therefore conflict with criteria SP4(b) and SP4(d). In relation to criterion SP4(e) there is no dispute that the proposal would not meet a proven local housing need. I shall consider its contribution to the wider housing supply of the District below.

While the Council’s Conservation Officer described the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, these comments were focused on the heritage impacts of the principle of development, to which no objection was raised. They do not therefore change the concerns that I have identified.

Overall, I find that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with Policies SP2, SP4 and DE1 of the Local Plan. Together, these seek to protect the nature and character of settlements given the context of the area, and which makes a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area. I give this conflict substantial weight, reflecting the similar aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

I have found that the scheme would cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would therefore fail to accord with the relevant development plan policies, which align with the aims of the Framework.

However, the Council confirm that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites with a housing land supply of 4.07 years. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as contained within paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. This requires that 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.

The proposal would make a positive contribution to the supply of housing in the District, of up to 9 dwellings, I give this moderate positive weight in the planning balance. It would also have economic benefits during the period of construction and its occupiers would make positive social and economic contributions to the area. It would have advantages in respect of [name]. I attribute additional limited positive weight to these benefits of the proposal. Nevertheless, it follows that, the adverse impacts of the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications for planning permission, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Given the harm I have identified, I consider that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

For the reasons given above, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, including the Framework, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.