Appeal 6001824

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal seeks outline permission, with details of access submitted for consideration. I have considered the appeal on this basis and have treated any plans in relation to matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale as illustrative.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposed development would comply with the spatial strategy for the area with regard to the location of housing development; • the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the village fringe and surrounding countryside; • the weight to be given to the need for sites for self / custom‐build housing; and • the weight to be given to the loss of designated Grade 2 agricultural land.

Policy S/6 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 (the Local Plan) sets out the Council’s development strategy and identifies where new development should be located. It details that development within the rural area will be limited, with allocations for jobs and housing directed to [name] and [name]. Rural settlement policies provide for windfall development in different categories of village, proportionate to the level of local service provision and the quality of public transport access to Cambridge or a market town.

Local Plan Policy S/11 identifies [site address] as an Infill Village, which represents the lowest tier in the settlement hierarchy. In such villages, Policy S/11 ordinarily restricts development to schemes of no more than two dwellings, which must lie within the village framework boundary and form part of an existing built frontage or residential curtilage. Exceptionally, the policy allows schemes of up to eight dwellings, either on brownfield land or where there are demonstrable overall benefits to the village. In this case, the appeal site lies outside the settlement boundary and comprises undeveloped land. Although the development is intended to provide a benefit by contributing to the supply of self / custom‐build housing, that benefit relates to district‐wide needs rather than to a specific need identified within the village. Benefits in terms of supporting local services such as schools and retail provision would also be focused outside of the village in other settlements. The likely positive benefits within the village are limited due to the limited provision of services within the village. The appeal scheme therefore fails to meet any of the relevant criteria set out in Policy S/11.

Policy S/7 of the Local Plan concerns development frameworks, which define where policies relating to the built‐up areas of settlements apply, as opposed to those concerning the countryside. The appeal site lies outside the area identified as being within the development framework for [site address] . Although it forms a gap within the otherwise contiguous development framework around the village, the second part of Policy S/7, which relates to development in the countryside, is applicable. This states that, outside development frameworks, only allocations within [name] that have come into force, together with development for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, outdoor recreation and other uses that need to be located in the countryside, or development supported by other policies in the Local Plan, will be permitted. The proposal does not fall within any of these categories, and it has not been demonstrated that it needs to be located in the countryside.

Local Plan Policy TI/2 requires development to be located so as to reduce the need to travel, particularly by car, and sets out criteria against which development likely to give rise to increased travel demand will be assessed. [name] have a poor range of services and facilities, and residents often need to travel outside the village to meet most of their daily needs. I observed that [site address] has very limited facilities, including a public house, church, village hall and playing fields, all of which are within a reasonable walking or cycling distance of the appeal site which is connected by a footpath. However, there is no school or shop within a reasonable walking distance.

[name] acknowledge that future occupiers of the proposed development would be able to access services such as GP practices and shops in neighbouring villages which would support these services and the development may contribute to maintaining pupil numbers at the nearby primary schools, the extent of these benefits would be limited. Notwithstanding the recognition at paragraph 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. In all likelihood, residents of the proposed development would be dependent heavily on the private car to access most essential services and facilities. The limited bus service available in the village would further increase this reliance. On balance, therefore, the development now proposed would not comply with Policy TI/2.

Overall, therefore, the proposed development would conflict with the spatial strategy for the area in respect of the location of new housing, including [name]/6, S/7, S/11 and TI/2 of the Local Plan. I also find conflict with Policy S/2, which, among other things, seeks to maximise the potential for journeys to be undertaken by sustainable modes of transport, including walking, cycling, bus and rail. I do not, however, find conflict with Policy S/3, which relates to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, nor with Policy S/10, which concerns Group Villages. The latter is a higher-tier settlement designation within the hierarchy and is therefore not applicable in this case.

As noted above, the appeal site forms a gap outside the otherwise contiguous development framework around the village. It is surrounded on two sides, to the east and west, by residential development and is not a location I consider to constitute open countryside in terms of its physical relationship with surrounding development. The sloping nature of the site, together with the surrounding boundary treatments, results in it being visually constrained, with views into the site primarily limited to the immediate area. It does, however, form a visual break in the otherwise continuous built form of the village.

While the application seeks outline permission and the detailed design and layout of the proposed development are not currently before me, I am satisfied that a scheme of up to eight dwellings could be arranged and designed in a manner that would be attractive and sensitive to its local context and surroundings. The downward slope of the site away from the road means that development would likely be less visible from within the village and could be accommodated within the landscape without undue prominence.

In summary, the proposed development would not cause material harm to the character or appearance of the countryside, the village fringe of [site address] , or the surrounding area. Although it would result in the loss of a visual gap within the settlement, I have not been directed to any policy that seeks to safeguard such visual breaks within what would otherwise be a village with a contiguous settlement pattern.

In this respect, I find no conflict with Policy NH/2 of the Local Plan, which seeks to protect the character and distinctiveness of the local landscape, nor with Policy HQ/1, which requires development to achieve a high standard of design that contributes positively to its local and wider context, including the urban, rural and landscape settings. As detailed above, however, there is conflict with Policy S/7, owing to the site’s location outside the development framework.

The description of development specifically refers to ‘custom/self-build homes’ This use is as set out at section 1 of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act

Section 2A of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016), means local planning authorities are under a duty to grant a sufficient number of suitable permissions to meet the demand for self / custom-built housing within their area.

[name], the Local Plan seeks to address this need by requiring that plots for self / custom-build housing are to be included in all housing sites of 20 or more dwellings. However, despite this policy having been in place for several years, it is not disputed that the District currently has a substantial shortfall of self / custom-build permissions compared to the number of new entries on the [name]. According to the Council’s figures, not challenged by the appellant, this is estimated to be 440 plots.

I have been refered by the appellant to three appeal decisions1 where the matter of self / custom build homes was considered by the Inspector. In each case the delivery of additional self / custom build homes was afforded substantial or very significant weight in the planning balance.

Both the [name], Caxton and Orwell decisions related to development proposals of a similar scale to the proposal and afforded substantial weight to the delivery of self / custom build homes. I have taken account of these previous decisions and afforded the provision of self / custom build homes substantial weight.

The appeal site comprises Grade 2 agricultural land, which is classified as best and most versatile (BMV). Policy NH/3 of the Local Plan seeks to prevent the irreversible loss of such land to development, unless the land has been allocated for development within the Local Plan or stainability considerations and the need for the development are sufficient to override the need to protect the agricultural value of the land.

While the Council maintains this as a reason for refusal, this position is not consistent with the officer’s report, which concluded that the loss of only 0.68 hectares of land, which has been in pasture for a significant period, was acceptable and compliant with Policy NH/3.

In conclusion, although the proposal would result in the irreversible loss of Grade 2 agricultural land and is therefore contrary to Policy NH/3, the scale of the loss is limited. Furthermore, the land’s limited suitability for agricultural use beyond pasture, largely due to its sloping topography, reduces the extent of harm. I therefore consider that the harm arising from this loss should be given moderate weight.

The proposal would deliver up to eight additional homes for individuals seeking to build their own homes, and this would contribute to the Government’s objective of increasing housing supply. However, I have not been presented with evidence to indicate that the Council is failing to deliver an appropriate housing land supply. This consideration nevertheless carries some limited additional weight in favour of the proposal.

The development would also give rise to modest economic benefits, including employment during the construction phase and ongoing support for the limited 1 APP/W0530/W/21/3282234 ([name]), APP/W0530/W/24/3347379 (Land off [address], Orwell) APP/W0530/W/24/3352408 ([name] of [name], [address], Caxton) local services available. These factors similarly carry some limited weight in favour of the proposal.

The proposed development would conflict with Local Plan Policies S/6, S/7, S/11 and T1/2, due to its location outside the village boundary, its scale exceeding the indicative size for [name], and its reliance on the private car to a significant extent. In these respects, the scheme would not be an ideal fit with the Local Plans strategy for the distribution of new housing in the District and would therefore not accord with the development plan as a whole. This consideration carries substantial weight in my determination.

The proposal would also result in the irreversible loss of Grade 2 agricultural land, contrary to Policy NH/3. However, given the limited scale of this loss, the harm arising from it carries only moderate weight.

I have found no conflict with Policy NH/2 nor with Policy HQ/1, which seek to protect the character and distinctiveness of the local landscape and require development to achieve a high standard of design.

The proposal would deliver additional homes in accordance with Government objectives and would give rise to modest economic benefits in terms of supporting local services. Both of these factors carry limited weight in favour of the development.

The need to provide for self / custom-build housing, and to meet the Council’s legal duty in this regard, is a very important material consideration. The proposal would make a meaningful contribution towards addressing the shortfall of self / custom-build housing in the district. However, although the description of development refers to self-build/custom-build homes, I have not been provided with any mechanism to secure this form of development. I am not satisfied that reference to self-build/custom-build housing within the description alone is sufficient to ensure delivery of such homes. A planning condition would not be the appropriate mechanism to secure this as I am not satisfied that it would pass the tests within paragraph 56 of the Framework, and neither the appellant nor the Council has proposed one.

In both the [name]’s case in Caxton and the Orwell case referred to by the appellant, completed Section [address] to secure the provision of self / custom-build housing, which is the appropriate mechanism for doing so. [address] Caxton case related to an application for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) addresses this issue at paragraph 22 ([name]: 58-[phone]), stating that planning obligations cannot be secured at the permission in principle stage but may be agreed at the technical details consent stage, provided the statutory tests are met.

No such agreement has been provided in the context of the current appeal. The Heads of Terms referenced in the [name] include a clause relating to this matter, but this does not provide the necessary certainty that the scheme would in fact be delivered as self / custom-build housing. As a result, because I cannot be certain that the development would be delivered as self / custom build homes, the weight given to this consideration is reduced significantly.

Overall, I conclude that the substantial weight that would otherwise be given to the benefits of delivering self-build/custom-build homes on this site does not outweigh the identified conflict with the relevant development plan policies concerning the location of new housing and the loss of Grade 2 agricultural land. This is primarily due to the uncertainty surrounding the delivery of self / custom-build homes in the absence of a completed Section 106 agreement. There are therefore no material considerations of sufficient weight to justify allowing the proposal contrary to the

The proposal is in conflict with the development plan as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.