Appeal 6001890

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of development as detailed on the Council’s decision notice, as this more accurately describes the proposed development.

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 and surrounding countryside; and • the weight to be given to the need for sites for self / custom‐build housing.

Policy S/11 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018 (the Local Plan) identifies [name] as an Infill Village, representing the lowest tier within the settlement hierarchy. While Policy S/6 allows for windfall development in various categories of villages, proportionate to the level of local service provision and the quality of public transport access to Cambridge or a market town, Policy S/11 ordinarily restricts development in [name] to schemes of no more than two dwellings. Such development must be located within the village framework boundary and form part of an existing built frontage or residential curtilage.

In this case, the appeal site lies outside the framework boundary albeit directly abutting it and comprises undeveloped land. Although the development is intended to contribute to the supply of self / custom-build housing, this benefit relates to district-wide needs rather than to any specific need identified within the village. Any benefits associated with supporting services such as schools or retail provision would similarly fall outside the village, given the absence of services within [name] itself. There is clear separation between the village of [name] and the nearby [name] where there are some very limited facilities. As such, the appeal scheme does not meet any of the relevant criteria set out in Policy S/11.

Policy S/7 of the Local Plan concerns development frameworks, which define the areas where policies relating to the built-up parts of settlements apply, as distinct from those that address development in the countryside. The appeal site being outside the development framework means the second part of Policy S/7 relating to development in the countryside is engaged. This policy states that, outside development frameworks, only allocations within [name] that have come into force, along 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, nor has it been demonstrated that it needs to be located in the countryside. While noting the significant shortfall in the delivery of self / custom-build housing plots in the district, I have not been presented with evidence to demonstrate that self / custom build housing must be provided in the countryside due to the lack of available plots elsewhere.

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 for assessing development that is likely to generate additional travel demand. [name] typically have a limited range of services and facilities, meaning that residents often need to travel elsewhere to meet most day‐to‐day needs. I observed that there are no meaningful facilities within [name] itself other than a church to the west of the village. As noted, there are some limited services in nearby [name], including a post office/village convenience store and a village hall, which are within a reasonable cycling distance of the appeal site. However, there is no footpath to facilitate safe pedestrian access, and there is no school within a reasonable walking distance of the site.

I acknowledge that future occupiers would be able to access services in neighbouring settlements, and that this could provide some limited support to those services. However, given that the proposal is for a single dwelling, the scale of any such benefit would be modest. While paragraph 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that development in one village may support services in another nearby, and paragraph 110 advises that a flexible approach should be taken to promoting sustainable transport in rural areas, it remains likely that residents of the appeal scheme would be heavily reliant on the private car to access the vast majority of essential services and facilities. The very limited bus service available in [name] would further increase this reliance. On balance, therefore, the proposal would not comply with Policy TI/2.

Overall, the proposed development would conflict with the spatial strategy for the area in respect of the appropriate location for new housing, including [name]/7, S/11 and TI/2 of the Local Plan. I also find conflict with Policy S/2, which seeks, among other things, to maximise opportunities for journeys to be undertaken by sustainable modes of transport such as walking, cycling, bus and rail. However, I find no conflict with Policy S/3, which relates to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. I also note that the council has confirmed that the reference to Policy NH/2 was made in error and I have therefore discounted it.

The appeal site is located on the northern edge of the village, immediately north of existing development and to the south of [address] / [address], which forms the principal road through the settlement. A farm complex lies to the east, and I do not consider the site to form part of the open countryside. The built form to the south of the road comprises dwellings of various styles, predominantly two‐storey, arranged opposite one another along a minor access road. These dwellings are set back from the road, with front gardens and areas of off‐street parking. The overall character is that of a quiet rural village. There is a discernible undeveloped gap between the development to the south of the appeal site which is the main body of the village and [address] / [address], and this gap represents an important element of the village’s character.

Although the application seeks outline permission and the detailed design and layout of the proposed development are not before me, I am satisfied that a dwelling could be accommodated on the appeal site without projecting significantly further north than the existing dwelling opposite, on the western side of the access road. Such a siting would retain the gap to the main road, which, as noted above, is an important feature of the village.

In summary, the proposed development would not result in material harm to the character or appearance of the village or the surrounding countryside. In this respect, I find no conflict with Policy HQ/1, which requires development to achieve a high standard of design that contributes positively to its local and wider context, including rural, urban and landscape settings. However, as established earlier, the proposal is in conflict with Policy S/7 due to its 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 497 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 weight in the planning balance and in the case of the Caxton decisions, substantial or very significant weight.

Both the [name], Caxton and Cottenham decisions concerned development proposals significantly larger than the scheme before me, and in those cases substantial weight was afforded to the delivery of self / custom‐build homes. [address] decision, by contrast, related to a single dwelling and was a similar scale to the current proposal and afforded moderate weight to the provision of self / custom‐build housing. I have taken these previous decisions into account and, in this context, consider it appropriate to attribute substantial weight to the delivery of self/custom‐build homes in this case, particularly as it is evident that failure to deliver sufficient plots for this form of residential development is continuing to be an issue across the district.

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 small contribution towards addressing the district‐wide shortfall in such provision. However, although the description of development refers to self / custom‐build homes, I am not satisfied that this reference alone is sufficient to ensure that the dwelling would be delivered as self / custom‐build. I have been provided with a draft planning condition by the Council (Condition 18), which has been reviewed by the appellant, who in turn has suggested amendments. However, I am not satisfied that either version would meet the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework, particularly with respect to enforceability.

This concern is illustrated by the scenario raised by the appellant in proposing amendments to the Council’s draft condition, namely the death of a self‐build occupier during the restricted occupancy period. The proposed mechanism, allowing the self‐build restriction to be removed by written agreement with the Council, would result in the loss of the self‐build unit. This would directly conflict with the description of development and would negate the benefit of granting planning permission for a self / custom‐build dwelling. As such, it would be unreasonable.

In the three cases 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. No such agreement has been provided in the context of the current appeal. 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 less than substantial. 1 APP/W0530/W/21/3282234 (Land at [name]), APP/W0530/W/19/3227065, ([address], [address], Caxton) APP/W0530/W/25/3360199 (Cottenham)

I have had regard to a third-party representation which raised concern over the access to the village and the potential impact of additional cars conflicting with other road users. However, this has not been raised as a reason for refusal by the Council and I have no technical evidence before me to reach a contrary conclusion

The proposed development would conflict with Local Plan Policies S/7, S/11 and TI/2, owing to its location outside the village boundary and to the very significant reliance it would place on the private car. In these respects, the proposal would not accord with the Local Plan’s strategy for the distribution of new housing within the district. This consideration carries substantial weight in my determination.

I have found no conflict with Policy HQ/1, which requires development to achieve a high standard of design. This absence of conflict carries neutral weight in the

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. Although the proposal would make only a limited contribution towards addressing the district‐wide shortfall, given that it comprises a single dwelling, I would, in principle, have been minded affording this benefit substantial weight. In reaching this conclusion, I am conscious of the significant and continuing shortfall in the availability of such plots across the district. However, this weight is less than substantial, as in the absence of a completed Section 106 agreement, I cannot be certain that the development would in fact be delivered as a self / custom‐build home.

Overall, I conclude that the less than substantial weight attributed to the delivery of a self / custom‐build home, primarily due to the uncertainty surrounding the delivery of a self / custom‐build unit, does not outweigh the identified conflict with the relevant development plan policies concerning the location of new housing. There are, therefore, no material considerations of sufficient weight to justify allowing the proposal contrary to the development plan.

The proposal conflicts 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.