Appeal 6001751

The appeal is dismissed.

Unlike the previous proposal for the site, which was dismissed on appeal1, the appellant has submitted a [name] (UU) signed and dated 20 January 2026 securing the dwellings as self-build and custom-build units. I have not sought the Council’s comments on the UU, but I have taken it into account in reaching my decision.

The main issues are: • Whether the site would be a suitable location for self-build housing, having regard to the development plan strategy for development in the countryside. • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site lies outside the defined settlement limits of Swannington as identified in the North West Leicestershire Local Plan (March 2021) (LP) and is therefore located in open countryside. Swannington is identified in Policy S2 of the LP as a Sustainable Village where a limited amount of growth is directed within those limits.

Policy S3 of the LP sets out the forms of development that will be supported in the countryside. Self-build housing does not fall within them, and the appeal proposal therefore conflicts with the countryside policy. This spatial approach is reinforced locally by Policy H2 of the Swannington Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2039 1 APP/G2435/W/24/336519 (March 2023) (NP) which treats land outside the settlement boundary as open countryside where development is to be carefully controlled in line with local and national strategic planning policies.

There is no dispute that future occupants of the development would have access to local services and public transport links, and that the site adjoins the settlement. However, accessibility in itself does not justify development beyond the settlement boundary.

I therefore conclude that the site would not be a suitable location for self-build housing when assessed against the development plan strategy for development in the countryside. As such, the proposal conflicts with Policy S3 of the LP and Policy H2 of the NP.

The site consists of an open field fronting [address], containing rough grassland, scattered trees and a roadside hedgerow. It forms part of a noticeable open break between built-up stretches of development to the north and south. The site lies within a shallow dip in the road, with a small brook passing beneath immediately to the north of the site, which combined with a backdrop of mature vegetation, contribute to the site’s semi-rural qualities and the sense of transition along this part of [address].

The built form on either side of the site illustrates two distinct settlement characteristics. To the north, the pattern is tight and linear, formed by terraced dwellings positioned close to the carriageway, creating a strong and continuous frontage. To the south, development becomes more dispersed and varied in its layout, consisting mainly of detached and semi-detached dwellings set within more generous plots. The differing architectural forms and degrees of enclosure either side of the site accentuate the role of the appeal site as a separating space between two character areas.

Although the proposal is not a form of development supported in principle under Policy S3, the policy nevertheless sets out criteria for development in the countryside which are relevant to the proposal. While not identified as land of special landscape value, and not forming part of any designated strategic gap or wedge, the site nevertheless plays an important role in the legibility of the settlement pattern. The prevailing form along this section of [address] is broadly linear, punctuated by undeveloped gaps which help define distinct parts of the village.

The Good Design for North West Leicestershire Supplementary Planning Document reinforces these aims, highlighting the importance of responding to settlement structure, maintaining openness where it contributes to local character, and ensuring that development integrates with its surroundings.

The proposal would introduce dwellings, domestic curtilage, access infrastructure, parking areas, fencing and associated domestic paraphernalia onto land that is currently open. These elements, taken together, would significantly reduce the openness and semi-rural qualities currently experienced here. The development would not read as a continuation of either of the adjoining built-form patterns. Instead, owing to its back-land depth, internalised layout and suburban arrangement, it would be perceived as a discrete residential enclave set back from the road, at odds with the prevailing linear character on either side.

While development exists on both sides, the proposal would not amount to ribbon development in the strict policy sense, as gaps to the north and south would remain and the development would be a discrete residential enclave. Policy S3 seeks to maintain separation and open undeveloped character between settlement boundaries. In this context, the infilling of this particular gap would diminish the visual break that currently provides relief along the streetscene and contributes positively to the character of this part of Swannington.

The harm arises from the principle and form of development on this open parcel rather than from detailed architectural matters. The proposal would undermine the spatial rhythm, openness and transitional qualities that define the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

I therefore conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policies S3 and D1 of the LP and Policy H4 of the NP. Together, these seek to safeguard landscape character, maintain openness and ensure that development responds to the village’s distinctive settlement patterns, among other things

The proposal would contribute 5 dwellings towards the District’s overall housing supply. The Council can currently demonstrate a 15.6-year supply of deliverable housing land, substantially exceeding the minimum five-year requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). This tempers the weight that I attach to general housing delivery but, nonetheless, it remains a limited benefit of the scheme.

The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (the Act) places a statutory duty on authorities to keep a register of persons seeking a self-build or custom-build plot and to ensure that sufficient suitable permissions are granted to meet that demand. For the current base period (31 October 2025 to 30 October 2026), the Council identifies a shortfall of 39 plots. To meet its duties under the Act the Council would need to grant planning permission for 39 self-build and custom housebuilding plots by 30 October 2026. There are 22 pending applications that cumulatively amount to 34 plots, and a further 5% of the proposed [address] Phase 2 are identified as custom or self-build units.

The appeal proposal would provide 5 self-build and custom-build homes secured through a signed and dated UU. These dwellings would contribute towards meeting the Council’s current unmet demand on a site with access to local services and public transport links close to the Sustainable Village of Swannington. Given that a large development in the District, if approved, could meet all the unmet demand for self-build dwellings and the appeal proposal would make only a modest contribution to meeting the current requirement I give moderate weight to the provision of 5 self-build dwellings in this instance.

The development would generate some economic activity during construction and future residents would be likely to use local shops and services. Biodiversity enhancements could be secured through an appropriate condition. These benefits would, however, be limited by the small scale of the scheme.

The Council found no harm or conflict with the development plan in respect of several other matters, including highways, flood risk, drainage, living conditions, loss of agricultural land, contamination, ecology or mining legacy, subject to conditions. Even if I were to agree, the absence of harm is a neutral matter that does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

Reference has been made to appeal decisions relating to self-build dwellings in other districts. However, it is unclear how those schemes relate to the particular circumstances of this site, and they do not alter my conclusions.

The parties consider that paragraph 11(d) of the Framework applies on the basis that the development plan contains no specific policies relating to self-build housing. This approach was taken by the Inspector in allowing an appeal at Osgathorpe2 and by the Council in determining a number of self-build proposals outside settlement limits. However, as I have found above, several development plan policies relating to locational strategy and to the protection of character and appearance are directly relevant to the proposal. In light of this, and given that the Council can demonstrate a housing land supply well in excess of 5 years, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework, and consequently paragraph 14, are not engaged in this case.

I have found that the site is not a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan’s spatial strategy, and that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. These are planning harms to which I attach considerable weight. I accord moderate weight to the provision of 5 self-build dwellings secured through the UU. The contribution to general housing land supply, the limited economic activity generated during construction and occupation, and the potential for biodiversity enhancements attract only limited weight. The remaining matters only carry neutral weight. These benefits do not outweigh the identified planning harms

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.