Appeal 6001684

The appeal is dismissed.

The application is in outline. It was originally submitted with all matters, except layout and access, reserved for later consideration. During the course of the application, the description of the development was changed by mutual agreement between the main parties and is now outline with all matters, except access, reserved for later consideration.

The submitted drawing 23/89 02d shows the existing access would be retained and widened. With regards the layout of the site for the dwellings, drawing 23/89 02d can only be illustrative, but it nonetheless provides a useful guide as to how the site could feasibly be developed. The actual appearance of the dwellings and the layout, scale and landscaping of the development would be the subject of later ‘Reserved Matters’ applications, should outline planning permission be granted.

Since the application was determined, on 10 December 2025 the Council adopted the Borough Plan Review (2021-2039), which replaces the previous Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Plan 2019. There is no dispute between the parties that there is no fundamental change to the development strategy – Nuneaton retains its primary role for housing - and Policy BE3 “Sustainable design and construction” remains principally the same.

When the application was determined under the previous development plan, the Council could only demonstrate a 4.9-year supply of deliverable housing land. As part of the Borough Plan Review the Council has updated its [name] position, and as of 1 April 2025 it is able to demonstrate a 10.5-year supply.

The second refusal reason was that the proposed dwellings did not meet the definition of self-build or custom housing1(SBCH) and as a result the proposal was required to deliver at least 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG). In order to qualify for the BNG exception the appeal should be accompanied by a planning obligation that would secure the dwellings as SBCH. During the course of the appeal the appellant has submitted a signed, dated and executed planning obligation2 by way of a [name] (the ‘UU’). Whilst the Council would have liked the drafting of the planning obligation to have been clearer, it has found on balance that the submitted UU meets the key objective of the 2015 SBCH Act and would be enforceable in the context of CIL requirements3. The Council therefore considers it would not be proportionate to sustain the second reason for refusal. I have no reason to take a different view.

In light of the above, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located on The Long Shoot, a predominantly residential road in an established residential area on the edge of, but within, Nuneaton. The Long Shoot is also a main route into Nuneaton. The site itself comprises what was once the rear garden of No.256, a two-storey detached dwelling. The plot also extends across the rear garden of No.258, which is a detached bungalow.

There is a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings of different ages, designs, styles and sizes. Properties front both sides of the road and are accessed from it. The prevailing pattern of development is of properties set back from the road and its wide verges behind good-sized front gardens and driveways, with a strong building line. This creates a broadly unified character and appearance to the area, despite the variety of house designs. Properties also have good-sized long linear rear gardens that form a distinctive and intrinsic element of the pattern and grain of development along this part of The Long Shoot.

I saw that the site has already been severed from the rear garden of No.256 and has been gravelled and new close boarded fencing erected around all of its boundaries. As a result, the long rear gardens of Nos.256 and 258 have been reduced in length, although they remain useable and sizeable.

Access to the appeal site has already been created using the existing driveway off The Long Shoot. It has been extended some [address] back into the site, passing between Nos. 256 and 258, and the two proposed dwellings would share it. At the time of my visit some vehicles and trucks were parked on the site as well as an occupied static caravan bounded by its own fencing within the site - this would be removed as part of the development. Notwithstanding the alterations already carried out they do not fundamentally alter the established character and appearance of the area. 1 The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016) and associated secondary legislation, provides a definition of self-build and custom housebuilding. 2 Pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3 Section 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

The proposal would involve erecting two detached dormer bungalows and two detached garages. The illustrative plan shows a possible layout arrangement of the dwellings, garages and private garden areas. Whilst the proposed dwellings would be bungalows, they would be located behind existing properties on The Long Shoot and would put built development in rear gardens where there is none at present. The proposed dwellings would not front The Long Shoot or have a street frontage or have any direct access off it. The remaining gardens of the existing properties would be reduced in size. The proposed dwellings would not have long rear gardens and, together with the reduction in the existing gardens, the loss of the long linear plots would change the grain of development. As a result, the proposal, including the subdivision of the plot, would erode the established pattern of development of the area. The proposal would thus have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Whilst public views of the dwellings from The Long Shoot would be limited, this does not mean the development is not capable of causing harm. While not determinative, the works that have already been carried out reinforce my concerns regarding the suitability of the proposal.

Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to Policy BE3 of the Borough Plan Review which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that development contributes to local distinctiveness and character by reflecting the positive attributes of the area, including consideration of street layouts, patterns of development, and plot size and arrangement. It would also be contrary to the advice in the Council’s Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document. This recognises the importance of making effective use of land, but states that ‘backland’ development still needs to integrate successfully with surrounding development and designs must be appropriate to an area. The proposal would also be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in that it would not be sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of other ‘backland’ housing developments nearby on the other side of The Long Shoot. One has involved the erection of 3 dwellings to the rear of No.255, where one of the new dwellings has been sited such that it is visible from the road when looking up the long driveway. The proposal before me does not place a dwelling fully in view at the end of the driveway, although the new housing estate development behind the appeal site means existing built development is visible from The Long Shoot.

Another 3 dwellings have been allowed on appeal to the rear of No.235. Despite the prevailing pattern of linear development fronting the road, that Inspector found the presence of buildings behind frontage development had become more typical, especially in the area immediately surrounding that appeal site as the Inspector was aware of the dwellings allowed to the rear of No.255. The Inspector considered the 3 dwellings would create a similar cluster of housing to that behind No.255. However, this is not the case on the side of the road for the current appeal, where long rear gardens remain principally intact and there has not been the subdivision of plots as described on the other side of the road.

I do not have full details of these schemes. Whilst the examples demonstrate that housing has been allowed in a limited number of back gardens, they are not directly comparable to the proposal before me and therefore do not set a precedent for allowing harmful development on the appeal site on the other side of the road. In any event, I must consider the appeal proposal on its own merits.

The new housing estate that has been built to the rear of the appeal site, and accessed further along The Long Shoot via [address], is not of the same scale or form as a ‘backland’ scheme for building a couple of houses in a back garden. Therefore, the presence of the housing estate does not justify filling in gardens between it and No.256.

A number of interested parties raise a number of other concerns about the proposal, but in view of my conclusions on the main issue there is no need for me to address these in the current decision.

To develop the site would be contrary to Borough Plan Review Policy BE3 for the harm the proposal would cause to the character and appearance of the area.

That said, the proposal would be for 2 SBCH dwellings. Under the SBCH Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016) and associated secondary legislation, local planning authorities have a duty to grant a sufficient number of suitable permissions to meet the demand for SBCH within their area. The provision of 2 SBCH would accord with the Framework of providing housing to meet the type and tenure of housing for different groups of the community, including “people wishing to commission or build their own homes”.

However, there is some dispute between the parties as to whether there is a shortfall of SBCH housing or the degree of any shortfall, against the backdrop of the Council having a healthy housing land supply. Whilst there may not be a specific SBCH development plan policy, Policy H1 of the Borough Plan Review deals with a range and mix of housing and states that SBCH development proposals will be supported where they are sustainably located, and subject to compliance with the development plan policies as a whole.

There is no dispute between the parties that the site is in a suitable location being within the built-up area of Nuneaton, one of the borough’s principal towns and a focus for most development. The proposal would also see more efficient use of land and there would be some modest associated economic and social benefits from jobs during construction and local spend from future occupiers. The proposal would be a small windfall site and the Framework recognises that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting housing requirements as they can often be built out relatively quickly.

Even if there was a shortfall of SBCH, this does not mean such dwellings can be allowed anywhere. I have found the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and thus conflict with the development plan, and this conflict is not outweighed by other material considerations.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should not succeed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR