Appeal 6001689

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the location of the proposed houses is acceptable having regard to local and national policy.

Policy SP1 of the East Lindsey Local Plan Core Strategy 2018 (the Local Plan) sets out the settlement hierarchy within the district in order to create a sustainable pattern of places based on accessibility and levels of facilities available in each settlement. Bucknall is allocated as a medium village, which is described within the supporting text to the policy, as providing some essential services but looks to towns and larger service villages to provide a greater range of community facilities.

The development of two dwellings as proposed would only be supported within the developed footprint which is defined within Policy SP4 of the Local Plan. There is no dispute that the appeal site is outside of the developed footprint, and I saw this to be the case at my site visit. The appeal site is located to the south west of the main part of the settlement within an area which has the rural character of the open countryside.

Policy SP8 of the Local Plan allows for rural exception sites. However, the proposal would not meet any of the criteria of the policy which allows for affordable housing and houses for rural workers. Hence the proposal would be contrary to Policies SP1, SP4 and SP8 of the Local Plan which sets out the spatial strategy for new development.

The two buildings to be demolished to make way for the proposed houses are agricultural buildings, one a grain store and the other a fairly nondescript agricultural building. The latter needs some work, but both have been deemed structurally sound and capable of conversion through two consents under the General Permitted Development Order1 for one and two houses respectively (the existing Class Q permissions).

Although needing work, the buildings are legible as agricultural buildings within a grouping of farm buildings in the open countryside, which is where they would be expected to be sited. Although more modern than the adjacent brick farm buildings they nonetheless contribute to an understanding of the use of the buildings as a group in the rural area. They could be described as functional and utilitarian, yet they are not out of place, particularly large or obtrusive, nor do they overwhelm the existing buildings. Instead they provide evidence of their original function and the evolution of the group of buildings in the open countryside integrating comfortably into their surroundings. They therefore make a neutral contribution to the area.

The existing Class Q permissions form a valid fallback position. There is nothing before me to suggest there is not a reasonable prospect of them being implemented should this appeal fail. The proposed houses would be designed to reflect agricultural buildings in the form of a farmhouse and threshing barn. However, the existing buildings, also demonstrate an agrarian character and they would be repaired during their conversion to residential properties. Hence their appearance would be improved as part of the existing Class Q permissions.

I understand that the proposal would provide significant biodiversity net gain (BNG) which would be better than the existing Class Q permissions as biodiversity net gain is not a requirement of such conversions. This would be a significant improvement over the existing permissions.

The proposal would also include energy efficient construction techniques which could not be controlled within the existing Class Q permissions. However, while it cannot be controlled, it is still open to the developer when carrying out the conversion to use appropriate materials through having to comply with other regulations. Consequently, I give this negligible weight.

It is agreed that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The proposal would provide two new dwellings to contribute to the supply, as opposed to the existing Class Q permissions which would provide three. With regards to housing land supply therefore the existing Class Q permissions would be the preferred option.

Bringing all the above together, while the design of the proposed houses would not be harmful, the provision of agrarian style buildings would match the character of those existing. There would be significant BNG with the proposal however, there would also be a reduction in housing land supply. [name] appreciate the reduction would only be by one dwelling, at a time when the Council is unable to demonstrate a supply that would be significant. Furthermore, while BNG cannot be controlled on the existing permissions, it is likely that future residents would want some form of garden, and I saw that there is adequate space for its provision in association with the existing buildings. I therefore give more weight to the reduction in contribution to the housing supply that would result in the proposal. 1 S/022/00896/24 and S/022/01751/24

Altogether therefore, for the reasons above, I do not accept that the proposal would be better in terms of the enhancement to the setting and character of the site. Furthermore, due to the reduction in the housing land supply contribution, I consider the fallback position to be preferable and therefore it carries minor weight in the determination of this appeal.

The proposal would provide two new houses which would contribute to the Councils housing land supply. It would also provide some limited benefits to the economy during construction as well as the spend by future residents.

However, the proposal would be within the open countryside away from facilities. Even the limited facilities in the village, would realistically require a car to access given the lack of footway and narrow unlit country lanes which would be contrary to the environmental objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

[name] consider that the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole having particular regard to key policies which includes directing development to sustainable places.

Therefore, the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole. Even accounting for relevant policies being out of date due to the lack of five year housing land supply, the considerations I outline above, including the Framework and the fallback position would not outweigh that conflict and the appeal is dismissed.