Appeal 6001799

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was submitted in outline with all detailed matters, other than the access, reserved for subsequent approval. Details of the appearance, layout and scale of the development were then submitted during the application process, and the application was then decided with only the matter of landscaping reserved for future approval. I have determined the appeal on the same basis.

I have taken the description of development from the decision notice as it reflects the changes I have referred to above.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is suitable for the proposed development, having regard to local and national policy; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the setting of the Orston Conservation Area (CA); and • whether it has been sufficiently demonstrated that the development would be acceptable in relation to flood risk.

Policy 3 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1 – [name] (CS), December 2014, sets out the spatial strategy for the Borough. The strategy indicates that sustainable development of Rushcliffe will be achieved through a strategy that supports a policy of urban concentration. It sets out a settlement hierarchy to accommodate this sustainable development, which consists of the main built-up area of Nottingham and several [name]. In other settlements, such as Orston, CS Policy 3 indicates that development will be for local need only.

The supporting text to CS Policy 3 indicates that local need development will be delivered through small scale infill development or on exception sites. The housing development section of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 – Land and Planning Policies (LPP), October 2019, clarifies ‘small scale infilling’ as being the development of small gaps within the existing built fabric of the village, or previously developed sites, whose development would not have a harmful impact on the pattern or character of the area.

The appeal site is a paddock bordered on one side by a dwelling at the end of a row of houses along [site address] , with existing dwellings extending in front of the site on the opposite side of the highway. There is a menage on the other side of the appeal site which is well contained within the landscape by hedgerows and trees and has a distinct rural character, and there are open fields at the rear and beyond.

As the appeal site is largely devoid of buildings, is enclosed by hedgerows, and adjoins open land on two sides, its appearance on the ground is more akin to the rural landscape than to the built environment of Orston. For these reasons, the site does not appear as a small gap within the existing built fabric of the village, and the proposed development would represent an outward extension, rather than a rounding off, of the settlement. I therefore find that the proposed development would not comprise small scale infill development. Furthermore, although the proposed dwellings would be suitable for families, there is no compelling evidence before me to suggest that this would meet an identified local need. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to CS Policy 3 and would not be supported by paragraph 82 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

[name] have found that the site is not within the built-up area of a settlement and is not in a location that accords with CS Policy 3, the proposed development is contrary to LPP Policy 11. Furthermore, whilst adjacent to a rural settlement, the proposed development is not supported by CS Policy 8 or LPP Policy 22 given the absence of evidence of a local housing need, it does not involve a rural exception site or comprise affordable housing, and it does not fall within the specified uses.

In reaching the above conclusions, I have had regard to the appeal decisions on [site address] referred to by the appellant. I note that in the appeal reference APP/P3030/W/17/3187630, the Inspector did not consider that proposal against the development plan and made no assessment as to whether it would comprise small scale infill development when determining the appropriateness of the site location. The Inspector, however, concluded that the proposal in that case did not conflict with paragraph [address] at that time (which is paragraph 84 in the current Framework). In the case before me, I also consider that the appeal site is not isolated in consideration of paragraph 84 of the Framework, as it adjoins the settlement of Orston. In the appeal reference APP/P3030/W/17/3222738, the Inspector concluded that the proposal in that case did not form infill development and therefore found conflict with CS Policy 3. My finding that the proposed development before me is not infill development is not inconsistent with those decisions.

It was concluded that the proposals in appeal reference APP/P3030/W/17/3277807 and at Dovecote Farm1 comprised infill development. However, the evidence before me indicates, in both cases, the front and one of the side boundaries of the sites adjoins buildings, and the other side is partially bound by built development, whereas the site before me is entirely bordered by open land on two sides. My conclusion that the proposal in the appeal I am determining does not comprise small scale infill development is not altered by such decisions given that they are not sufficiently comparable.

I acknowledge the similarities between the appeal site before me and the site on Chapel Street2. In the passage from the officer’s report highlighted by the appellant, the officer concluded that the appeal decisions, which I have considered above, would make the refusal of planning permission on [address] difficult to defend, notwithstanding that the proposal was not situated on an infill site. However, for the reasons set out above, I have found that such appeal decisions do not support the conclusion that the proposed development before me constitutes small-scale infill development. Therefore, whilst I recognise the importance of consistency in decision-making, the [address] decision does not provide sufficiently clear or convincing justification to allow the proposed development before me.

The appeal site has good pedestrian and cyclist access to the facilities and services within Orston and will assist in maintaining the vitality of this rural community in accordance with paragraph 83 and 88(d) of the Framework. There are bus stops near to the site on Loughbon which, according to information displayed is served by a regular bus service. Additionally, the site is within easy walking distance of the Elton and Orston train station. This suggests that the site is in an accessible location and that the occupants of the proposed dwellings would not be wholly reliant on the use of a private vehicle. Nevertheless, the proposed development must be considered against the development plan, which, for the foregoing reasons, does not support residential development on the appeal site.

I conclude that the location of the proposed development is not suitable as it would be contrary to the spatial strategy as set out in CS Policy 3. In addition, it would conflict with CS policies 1 and 8 and LPP Policy 22 which, together, seek to restrict development within the open countryside.

The appeal site lies immediately adjacent to the boundary of the CA, with only a minimal portion of the proposed access and visibility splays extending within it. The CA encompasses the historic core of Orston, along with wooded and open fringe areas. Notably, the neighbouring dwelling, as well as the grass verge and highway fronting the site, fall within the CA. In this context, it is clear, and agreed by the main parties, that the appeal site forms part of the setting of the CA.

Drawing on the Orston Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP), March 2023, and my observations, I consider that the significance and special interest of the CA, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, is derived from the diverse range of residential property types, many of which are traditional cottages and houses. As recognised in the Planning Practice Guidance, significance is 1 Application reference 25/01171/OUT 2 Application reference 24/00916/FUL derived not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting3. This is reflected in the CAAMP, which identifies the strong equestrian influence as a defining characteristic that contributes to the special interest of the CA, evidenced by the retention of many paddocks on the outskirts of the village.

The key characteristics of [site address] that contribute to the significance of the CA, as identified in the CAAMP, include its informally arranged cottages and farmhouses nestled within a pastoral setting of paddocks and pastureland. It is common ground that the frontage hedgerow and grass verge along the highway adjoining the site contribute positively to the setting of the CA.

The appeal site does not form part of the surrounding fields and open spaces which lie within the CA and is not part of a designated landscape area, the Green Belt or Local Green Space. Nonetheless, it enhances the sense of connection of the CA to the countryside. For this reason, I also find that the open and spacious character of the appeal site, which is seen from [site address] at the gate, positively contributes to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development comprises four large, detached dwellings of identical footprint and appearance, with one handed variation, each served by a detached double garage located to the front. Whilst the development adopts a low-density, linear layout, and would utilise materials consistent with the surrounding area, the scale and uniform appearance of the proposed dwellings would create a stark and unacceptable contrast with the more varied and modest cottages and farmhouses along [site address] . This incongruity, exacerbated by the atypical positioning of the garage, would be harmful to the character of the area.

Some boundary hedgerow would be lost to accommodate the proposed access. The remainder would be retained or replanted behind the visibility splays and proposed footpaths. Nonetheless, the dwellings would be seen in views from [site address] at the access point and above the hedges, and in the panoramic view from [address] that is identified in the CAAMP. Furthermore, the introduction of 2-metre-wide footpaths to either side of the proposed access, which would not link to an existing footpath, would be incongruous with the informal character of this part of [site address] . The proposed development would, therefore, be unexpected and out of keeping with the character of [site address] to its detriment. Such harm could not be fully addressed through landscaping.

Given the above, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the Orston Conservation Area. Consequently, it would conflict with CS Policy 10 and 11 and LPP policies 1, 22 and 28, which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is sympathetic and reinforces valued local characteristics, that edges of settlements will be conserved and enhanced and that heritage assets are conserved.

It is common ground that the site lies within [name] 1, where the risk of surface water flooding is very low. However, in the absence of infiltration testing, the Council considers that the submitted surface water drainage information is insufficient, particularly in light of concerns raised by interested parties regarding localised flooding in the vicinity of the site. 3 [name] and enhancing the historic environment - Paragraph: 006 [name]: 18a-006-20190723

[name] note that the application form does not indicate how surface water will be disposed of, the proposed development is supported by a [name] and [name] (DSFRS) which indicates that permeable driveways and garden soakaways would form the basis of the detailed drainage design for the proposed development. Whilst not supported by infiltration testing, the DSFRS states that information from local soil maps has been considered, which indicates that drainage would be slighting impeded, but viable, and that the infiltration rate used in the hydraulic simulation calculations are appropriate for such conditions. No substantive evidence has been presented to dispute the findings of the DSFRS.

Therefore, from the evidence before me, I am satisfied that if I were minded to allow the appeal, a suitably worded condition could be imposed to require adequate testing to inform a surface water drainage strategy. Furthermore, I am satisfied that an appropriate drainage strategy could be achieved to ensure that the surface water is addressed and that the proposed development would not increase the risk of flooding off site.

I conclude that it has been sufficiently demonstrated that the development would be acceptable in relation to flood risk and would not conflict with LPP Policy 18 which, amongst other things, seeks to manage the impact of flood risk and seeks to ensure that schemes incorporate sustainable drainage systems. It would also accord with the similar aims of the Framework set out at paragraphs 164 and 184.

The proposed development would provide family housing that would contribute to the mix and choice of homes in Orston. However, the Council state that it has a housing supply in excess of 5 years, which is not disputed by the appellant. Furthermore, as stated above, I have been presented with no compelling evidence to demonstrate that there is an identified local need for family housing.

As such, whilst acknowledging the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of housing, there is nothing before me to suggest that current policy is not providing enough housing to meet the requirements for the area, or that there is any evidenced shortfall in family housing that would be addressed by the proposed development. I therefore attach limited weight to the provision of four dwellings as a public benefit. Contributions to the local economy and the support that the proposed development would give to local services and facilities, due to its construction and/or occupation, would also be public benefits to which I attach limited weight due to the small scale of the scheme.

The supporting information indicates that the proposed dwellings would incorporate high energy-efficiency standards. Such design credentials could be secured through the imposition of appropriately worded conditions as could planting of native species and biodiversity enhancements. Nonetheless, in the absence of precise details no more than moderate weight is attributed to these matters as benefits. Furthermore, whilst provision for electric vehicle charging points could be secured, it would be impossible to control by condition the type of vehicles that would be used by the future occupiers or visitors to the dwellings. I therefore afford this benefit limited weight.

I have found that the proposed development would be contrary to the spatial strategy, would harm the character and appearance of the area and would not preserve the setting of the adjacent CA. Consequently, I have found the proposed development would be contrary to CS policies 1, 3, 8, 10 and 11 and LPP policies 11, 22 and 28. The absence of harm from flooding is a neutral factor

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting and that this should have a clear and convincing justification. Given the localised effect of the proposed development, I find the harm to be at the lower end of less than substantial but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The totality of the public benefits I have outlined above do not outweigh the level of harm identified to the significance of the designated heritage asset. Therefore, no clear and convincing justification for this harm has been demonstrated.

Considering the conflict with the spatial strategy and the outcome of the heritage balance, and notwithstanding that the appeal site is in an accessible location and would not result in harm due to flooding, I conclude that there is a clear reason to refuse the proposed development.

I have found that the proposed development is acceptable in relation to flood risk. However, this does not outweigh the harm resulting from the site’s unsuitability for the proposed development due to its conflict with the Council’s spatial strategy, and its adverse impact on a designated heritage asset. The proposed development therefore conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.

I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.