Appeal 6001801

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are whether the site is a suitable location for a new dwelling having regard to i) national and local planning policies; ii) effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the nearby conservation area; iii) the effect on ecology and biodiversity; and iv) highway safety.

Policies ST1 and ST2 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan 2020-2038, adopted May 2024 (the local plan), set out the spatial strategy, settlement hierarchy and housing growth requirement for the area. These policies direct most new growth to towns and larger rural settlements, as well as supporting some limited development in some small rural settlements.

Saundby is not identified as either a large or small rural settlement in the local plan, and accordingly, it is classed as countryside. [name], which is identified as a small rural settlement, is approximately 1km to the north of the site. The appeal site forms part of a larger parcel of land, the remainder of which separates it from a couple of dwellings to the south. It is otherwise surrounded by open fields. It is not therefore within or adjoining the built form of a settlement identified as suitable for new housing growth.

New residential development in the countryside is restricted by policy ST2 to replacement dwellings, the conversion of existing buildings and development supported by neighbourhood plans or other relevant development plan policies. I have not been directed to any other relevant policies which would apply to this case. Whilst reference is made to policy ST28 of the local plan, this confirms that self-build housing will only be supported where it complies with other relevant local plan policies.

Whilst there is a footpath running along the opposite side of [address] (A620), this leads only to a small number of other houses, rural enterprises, a church and a bus stop offering limited services. As the footway is narrow, unlit, adjacent to a busy road and leads to limited services and facilities, walking or cycling along this would not be a safe or attractive option to future occupiers of the development for accessing their day-to-day needs. Although the dwelling would have work from home space, not everybody can or does work from home, and this does not negate the need to access shops, health care, education and leisure facilities. Access to such facilities in the small rural village of Beckingham and the town of Gainsborough, would most likely be by car.

I therefore conclude the proposed development would be isolated from other dwellings, services and facilities and accordingly, in the absence of any need or special circumstances to justify a new dwelling in the countryside, the site is not a suitable location for such a development. The self-build nature, ecofriendly construction and the provision of electric vehicle charging facilities do not outweigh this.

The proposal would be contrary to policies ST1 and ST2 of the local plan. These policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), particularly paragraph 84, which states that planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated new homes in the countryside except for in a small number of circumstances, none of which apply in this case.

The appeal site is located over 150 metres to the north of the Saundby Conservation Area (SCA). Whilst there is a statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas, this does not extend to the setting of conservation areas or to land outside of them.

I have not been advised what the significance of the SCA is, but from my own observations, this is derived from the historic and architectural interest of the church and the small group of historic cottages and farmsteads surrounding it. Trees and woodland contributing to the setting of these buildings are also included within the boundary.

The fields surrounding the SCA, including the appeal site, do not form part of its special architectural or historic significance or the justification for its designation. Moreover, due to the topography of the area, the height of the proposed building and existing landscaping around the site, the new development would not be visually prominent in any important views into or out of the SCA. The design of the proposal would therefore preserve the character and appearance of the SCA as a whole and would not result in harm to its wider setting.

Unlike the larger arable fields surrounding it, the appeal site comprises part of a much smaller and more enclosed grass paddock. Whilst its appearance is nothing remarkable, its openness and its surrounding boundary trees and hedges, make a positive contribution to the rural character of the area. The proposal would alter its character from an open undeveloped grass paddock with a little used field access over a grass verge, to a modern dwelling with a large footprint, domesticated curtilage and hard surfaced access crossing, eroding the contribution the site makes to the surrounding countryside.

I acknowledge that the dwelling has been designed to appear as a range of former agricultural cart sheds in a courtyard layout, would be single storey, situated on land lower than the level of the road, and screened by landscaping, which despite containing gaps and being less effective in winter, could be reinforced with new planting. However, it would be unusual to see such a building isolated from a wider farmstead or holding. I also note that grasscrete is proposed to be used for the large parking and turning space within the site, but a large section of the existing boundary trees and hedges, and the wide grass verge, would be removed to facilitate the proposed new access, which would most likely need to be finished in tarmac or concrete crossing the verge to satisfy the local highway authority. The removal of landscaping would open up views from the road into the site, displaying domestic buildings, structures, gates and parked vehicles. The landscaping proposed to separate the site from the wider paddock it forms part of would take quite some time to become effective.

My attention has been drawn to the fact that planning permission has been granted for a substantial solar farm on the fields surrounding the site and other properties along the western side of [address]. That development had not occurred at the time of my visit, but if it does go ahead, it would inevitably alter the surrounding landscape for a considerable period of time. However, such developments are subject to different planning considerations, have different locational requirements and deliver different and wider benefits to those of a single dwelling. Furthermore, a high quality eco dwelling would be expected to have a much longer lifespan than a solar farm, which would retain and return to agricultural use. Accordingly, whilst the solar farm would temporarily reduce the landscape effect of the proposed development, it would not justify it.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the rural character and appearance of the area contrary to policies ST33 and ST35 of the local plan, and paragraph 135 of the Framework. These policies seek to ensure development is sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding environment and landscape setting. However, I find no conflict with policy ST40 of the local plan, the Framework or the Act, with regard to the requirement to preserve or enhance heritage assets and their settings.

Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) introduced a statutory framework for biodiversity net gain (BNG). Subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the [name] (BGC), which requires that at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met.

The proposal would result in the loss of an area of rough grassland and a section of boundary trees and hedges. The appeal has not been accompanied by the minimum information set out in Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. [name] could potentially be achieved within the site and remainder of the adjoining paddock, which is outlined in blue on the submitted plans, in the absence of a completed metric calculation tool showing robust calculations of the pre-development biodiversity value of onsite habitat, and the other statutory minimum information requirements, I cannot be certain the mandatory BNG requirements would be met.

Although the proposal is described as a self-build dwelling, which would be exempt from the BGC, no planning obligation has been submitted to secure the construction and future occupation of the dwelling for this purpose. The application form, submission of a CIL exemption form and the appellant being on the council’s self-build register would not be sufficient to enforce this. Whilst the appellant has expressed a willingness to provide a legal agreement to ensure the development meets the self-build criteria, there is no such mechanism before me and a condition to secure the dwelling as self-build or to require the submission of a legal agreement would fail to satisfy the tests in the Framework. As such, the exemption could not be applied with any degree of certainty, and the proposal would therefore be required to provide BNG.

The site comprises rough grassland, bound by trees, hedges and a stream, adjacent to arable farmland. I understand that a [name] was submitted with the application, although I have not been provided with a copy of this, which seemingly identified the potential for protected species on the site and recommended a further, more detailed, survey. I have been provided with a copy of the protected species survey dated March 2023. The survey does not advise how long its findings are valid for, but where protected species are known to be present their habitats can alter and increase over time. Accordingly, surveys should generally be updated if they are older than 12-18 months.

In this case the protected species survey was 2 years old at the time of submission but was accepted as sufficient to validate the application. I have not been provided with details or copies of any consultation responses from any ecology specialists or from Natural England. Whilst the proposed plans have been amended since the report and recommendations were produced, the dwelling and areas of hardstanding currently proposed, remain in more or less the same part of the site as the plans shown in the submitted survey.

Given the passage of time and opportunity for change between the approval and commencement of development, updated surveys could be conditioned to be undertaken immediately prior to commencement of development and any recommendations complied with. I also note that a licence from Natural England would be required in the event that any harm or disturbance would be caused to the protected species present on or close to the site. This would be likely to require an updated survey and a construction environmental management plan, which could also be conditioned.

Based upon the evidence submitted, and the known presence of protected species, appropriate pre-commencement conditions could be used to ensure any harm is avoided. However, the proposal fails to adequately address BNG or to provide a mechanism to secure an exemption from this requirement and is therefore contrary to policy ST38 of the local plan and paragraph 187 of the Framework, which require all new development to make provision for BNG, preferably on site.

The appeal statement refers to the site being accessed via an existing field gate from [address] (A620). Whilst there is an existing field gate, the access over the wide grass verge to this is overgrown and unused. As the existing field access is not shown on the plans, it is unclear whether it is within the red line boundary, or whether it would be closed or retained to serve the remainder of the grass paddock. It is also not in the same position as the proposed new access shown on the submitted drawings, which is at the northern end of the site, adjacent to the neighbouring field access.

I note that the road is subject to a 40mph speed limit, not 50mph, albeit speeds appeared faster despite the nearby radar speed display sign. The absence of any accident records on this stretch of road no doubt reflects the absence of junctions, with field accesses only generating very infrequent use, generally by large and highly visible farm machinery. The incidents shown on the submitted crash map appear to be close to junctions. I saw no pedestrians using the path alongside the opposite side of the road, which is unsurprising given the relatively isolated nature of the location, and the lack of dwellings and facilities linked by the route. It is therefore also not surprising that there are no recorded pedestrian incidents. A condition to require the provision of a new footpath has been suggested, but I have no details of where this would run or who it would benefit other than the appellant.

It was apparent to me, from parking and exiting the adjacent field access onto [address], that the gradient, although appearing quite shallow, affects visibility and the ease of egress onto the main road. Whilst this can be addressed, such works would require planning permission and should therefore have been included with the application for full assessment in terms of not only highway safety but also the effect of such works on the appearance of the countryside, boundary landscaping and wildlife habitats. The gradient plan submitted provides limited details of any existing and proposed levels and does not reflect the revised access position to the north of the dwelling.

Notwithstanding the above, there would be clear visibility in both directions along the road from the proposed new access. Although visibility to the north is not possible beyond the top of the hill, I was able to see traffic approaching from the dwelling to the north of the site, which is in excess of 100m away. Visibility downhill to the south towards Saundby was also clear for a significant distance.

I therefore conclude that a new access could be constructed in the location proposed, without detriment to highway safety, and thus would accord with policy ST53 of the local plan and paragraph 115 of the Framework, in so far as they seek to ensure safe and suitable access to new development. I also agree that crossing the road to the footway on the other side would be safe during daylight hours when pedestrians would be visible to drivers travelling along the unlit road.

My attention has been drawn to various other planning permissions granted in the area. However, these relate to housing developments adjoining the built-up larger village of Beckingham, householder developments and conversions. As such they are not comparable to the proposal before me.

The council has not disputed the appellant’s assertion that there is a shortfall of self-build plots, and I have no reason to doubt that there is a demand for such plots in rural areas. However, these shall need to be found within, or where appropriate adjoining, the built-up edge of villages and not in isolated locations contrary to local and national planning policies. Self-builds are not one of the recognised exceptions for isolated new dwellings. Furthermore, as already discussed, there is no mechanism before me to secure the proposed dwelling as a self-build.

I note that housing requirements have increased, however there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the council does not have a 5-year supply of housing. Even if that was the case, the Framework would not indicate an isolated new dwelling should be allowed.

The proposal, whether self-build or not, would make a very small contribution to the supply of housing in the area and be a very modest social benefit. The support that the construction of one house and its future occupancy would provide for the local economy would be insignificant. The eco friendly construction is commended but such a dwelling does not require or justify a countryside location.

I acknowledge that the appellant wishes to reside close to family in this area. However, this is not a planning matter and there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that this desire could not be met by other homes or plots of land, which are better linked to the built form of the nearby settlements and services.

[name] have found that the proposal would not result in harm to the conservation area, and subject to conditions would be acceptable in terms of its effect on highway safety and protected species, the site is not an appropriate location for new housing, and its development would further erode the character and appearance of the countryside. It has also not been demonstrated that the necessary BNG can be achieved or that the proposal would be exempt from this requirement.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. The appeal is therefore dismissed.