Appeal 6001666

The appeal is dismissed.

Further information was requested from the Council regarding the official list entries for the grade II listed buildings of The Gables and [address], which were provided.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be suitably located having regard to relevant development plan policies concerning the spatial strategy for new housing development and its accessibility to services and/or facilities. • Effect on biodiversity, specifically the loss of an existing hedgerow.

The site is located outside, though adjacent to the residential settlement boundary. The site is accessed off a single lane road, with a 30mph speed limit. The road does not benefit from any footpaths, until it joins [address]/A143.

The settlement of Horringer includes a community centre, church, early years and primary school and pub/restaurant provision. There is also a bus stop near the junction of [address] and [address]/A143.

The Council notes that [address] is a quiet road that would allow cyclists and pedestrians to travel safely into the village, though raises that there is a lack of travel links that would allow future residents to access services and facilities beyond the village.

Policy SP12 of the West Suffolk Local Plan 2024-2041 July 2025 (Local Plan) provides the spatial strategy for the Local Plan that states that new residential development will be permitted within the housing settlement boundaries. Outside of these boundaries is countryside unless specifically identified for other uses within the Local Plan. The countryside will be protected from unsustainable development. It overall, seeks to direct new homes to the more sustainable locations in accordance with Policy SP13 of the Local Plan.

Policy SP13 of the Local Plan provides a hierarchy of settlements ranging from towns to villages. Horringer is a [name] village, which means in the district it comes near the bottom of the hierarchy of sustainable settlements as detailed in the Local Plan.

Policy SP20 of the Local Plan states the schemes that provide self-build dwellings will be supported where it complies with the other policies in the Local Plan.

Policy SP21 of the Local Plan details the requirements of housing, including self-build, within the countryside. This policy requires the development to be within a group of at least seven dwellings, the proposal involves the infilling of a small undeveloped plot with one or two dwellings and that the location must have sustainable links, including footpaths, cycle routes and/or public transport to a settlement in the hierarchy defined within Policy SP13.

I have noted the number of dwellings along [address], though the site and adjacent woodlands form an extensive break in built form between the properties of The Gables and [address]. On this basis, the site does not meet the requirement of infilling a small undeveloped plot in an otherwise built up frontage. It is also noted that the site does not benefit from footpaths into the settlement of Horringer. The proposal significantly conflicts with Policy SP12 of the Local Plan.

The appellant has provided evidence of the connections to services/facilities both within Horringer and [name], which I have noted and accepted. However, the distance to [name] means people are less likely to want to walk or cycle to reach the services/facilities it provides. In addition, the requirements of both Policies SP12 and SP13 of the Local Plan, make it clear that new development should be located in the most sustainable settlements. Horringer is not listed as one of the more sustainable settlements within the district and on this basis the proposal would not comply with Policies SP12 and SP13 of the Local Plan.

The appellant has stated that the Council is not meeting its requirement to provide sufficient self-built plots and I have not received any evidence to suggest the appellant is incorrect in their statement. [name] note the Council has Policies SP20 and SP21 of the Local Plan that provide support for self-builds, the proposal would still make a limited positive impact on making up for a shortfall in self-build plots.

I have noted the precise wording of the recently adopted Local Plan and that there is no suggestion the Council cannot demonstrate a deliverable five year supply of housing land. Therefore, the Council can demonstrate an up to date Local Plan and on this basis, I have noted and given significant weight to the requirements of paragraph 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (Framework). I have given greater weight to Paragraph 12 over paragraphs 83 or 110 of the Framework, specifically where I have noted the policies in the Local Plan do make allowances for growth in rural areas.

I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposal would not comply with the spatial strategy of the Local Plan. On this basis the proposal does not comply with Policies SP12, SP13 and SP21 that in total seek to ensure new residential development is located in the most sustainable locations within the district, while making allowances for some dwellings in rural locations.

The appellant has provided a completed [name] with the appeal that confirms that the dwelling, if allowed, would be first constructed and occupied as a self-build dwelling.

The Council in its officer delegated report confirms that [name] (BNG) is not required, due to it being a self-build dwelling. However, the Council refused the application on the basis that the native hedgerow along the southern boundary is not included within the BNG mapping or metric.

The proposed Site Plan, drawing number PL-03 [name], shows that most of the hedge would remain in situ and only a small section removed to allow for the access to be widened to allow for an appropriate width and visibility splays. There is no evidence before me that the hedge forms part of an irreplaceable habitat.

The creation of a suitable access is an essential part of the proposal and therefore it would be unreasonable to expect the appellant to preserve this small section of hedgerow. In addition, a significant majority of the hedge would remain. Therefore, in this case a suitable landscaping scheme via condition would be able to both replace and create an enhancement of this biodiversity feature on site.

I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposal would not have any detrimental effect on biodiversity, due to the southern hedgerow not being included within the BNG calculations. On this basis, the proposal complies with Policy SP9 of the Local Plan that seeks to conserve, restore and enhance habitat features.

The duties contained in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). The Act contains duties whereby special regard should be given to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

The site is located between two grade II listed buildings of The Gables and [address]. I have noted the detailed comments of the Council’s Conservation Officer who has provided a comprehensive understanding of the significance of both of these heritage assets, as well as the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

[name] note the comments of the occupier of [address] who believes the site was part of the manor’s estate, there is no evidence provided to demonstrate that this was the case. Therefore, I accept the Council’s understanding of the significance of the heritage assets.

I also concur with the Council that the proposed dwelling due to its positioning on the site and its architectural style would not impact upon the significance of the grade II listed buildings or on the conservation area. On this basis, it complies with the Act and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

From the evidence provided the site is located within the Zone of Influence of a European Site comprising the [name] and SAC. The Council applies the [name] and [name] (RAMS). The appellant states they have made a RAMS contribution. If the appeal was to be allowed, it would be necessary to consider this matter within an appropriate assessment. However, as detailed above, there are strong reasons to dismiss this appeal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.