Appeal 6001922

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the proposed erection of a single self-build dwelling including installation of a cesspool at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00694/OUT, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the proposed changes.

The planning application subject to this appeal was for outline planning permission with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. Therefore, details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are not for determination.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the setting of [site address] Conservation Area (DLHCA); and, • whether the proposed dwelling would be suitably located having regard to the spatial strategy set out within the development plan.

The appeal site adjoins the boundary of DLHCA. The Character Appraisal & Management Plan1 (CAMP) outlines that the special character of DLHCA is derived from the survival of a medieval and post-medieval agricultural ‘village-scape’, with a matrix of lanes, sunken and enclosed by walls and hedges. It goes onto explain that the presence of fields and open recreational land around the hamlet reinforces the agricultural character of the settlement. During my site visit, I observed that these features have been retained and the hamlet has a rural character.

The appeal site is a field on the edge of the hamlet. It forms part of a network of fields which surround the hamlet and contribute to its rural character. The neighbouring site which is within the hamlet includes a large workshop and a significant amount of hardstanding. The contrast in appearance of the neighbouring sites provides a strong boundary to the hamlet. Accordingly, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and the setting of DLHCA.

The proposal would introduce a significant amount of built development to a largely undeveloped site. It would also introduce residential activity, and it is likely that domestic paraphernalia would be accommodated in external areas. Consequently, the proposal would have an urbanising effect on the appeal site.

As the proposal would extend built development along [address] into a largely undeveloped area, it would be contrary to the prevailing pattern of development. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling would interrupt a view to the countryside from within the hamlet, as identified within the CAMP. As such, it would negatively alter the setting of this part of the hamlet.

I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of DLHCA. The proposal would be contrary to Policy S3 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan, March 2021 (LP). The Policy indicates that development will be supported where the appearance and character of the landscape is safeguarded and enhanced. The proposal would also not accord with paragraph 135 of the Framework where it advises that planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character.

Given the proposal is of a modest scale and it would only affect the setting of DLHCA, it would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of DLHCA, when considered as a whole. As this appeal relates to an outline planning application, the detailed design of the proposed development is not before me. Nonetheless, with an appropriate design and mitigation, the harm caused to the significance of DLHCA could be at the lower end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm. Notwithstanding this, the Framework indicates that great weight should be given to an asset’s conservation and any harm to a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. As such, I ascribe 1 [site address] Conservation Area, [name] & Management Plan, Conservation Area designated September 2010 significant weight to the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area, including to the significance of DLHCA.

LP Policy S2 outlines the settlement hierarchy for the District. [site address] forms part of the Coalville Urban Area which is identified as a Principal Town, where the largest amount of new development will be directed to. However, the appeal site is located outside of the Limits to Development of [site address] .

Policy G1 of the Hugglescote and [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2019-2031, November 2021 (NP) indicates that land outside of the Limits to Development will be treated as countryside. It goes on to explain that development will be carefully controlled in line with local and national planning policies.

LP Policy S3 also identifies land outside of the Limits to Development as countryside. It is a permissive policy which supports certain forms of development in these locations. The proposal does not conform with any of the developments supported by the Policy.

LP Policy S3 supports specific development subject to criteria, identified as (i) to (vi) within the policy. The proposal would not comply with criterion (i) as it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It would also not comply with criterion (iii) as it would exacerbate the existing ribbon development along [address].

With regard to criterion (ii), the proposal would extend development along [address] into a largely undeveloped area. Nevertheless, the nearest settlement in this direction is Ibstock, which is some distance away. Given the distance between the settlements and the modest scale of development, the effect of the proposal on the open character and physical and perceived separation between settlements would be negligible. On balance, the proposal would comply with this criterion.

It is not disputed by the parties that the proposal complies with criterion (iv) to (vi). There is no evidence before me which would lead me to an alternative conclusion. Notwithstanding this, the proposal would be contrary to LP Policy S3 as it would not form a development supported by the policy, and it would be contrary to the specified criteria. Also, due to the policies’ interdependence, the proposal would be contrary to NP Policy G1.

Paragraph 232 of the Framework specifies that due weight should be given to policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The Framework advises the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth. It also recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Accordingly, LP policies S2 and S3, and NP Policy G1 are consistent with the Framework and the conflict with these policies should be given full weight.

I conclude that the proposed dwelling would not be suitably located having regard to the spatial strategy set out within the development plan. The proposal would conflict with LP policies S2 and S3 and NP Policy G1, for the reasons given above.

Interested parties have highlighted a previous planning permission2 that relates to the appellant where development may have stalled. This is outside of the scope of my assessment of the appeal proposal. Similarly, any future applications at the appeal site will be assessed against the development plan and relevant material considerations. The potential for future applications does not alter my assessment on the acceptability of the appeal proposal.

Under Section 2A of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (SBCH Act) the Council has a statutory duty to give development permission for enough serviced plots to meet demand. The Act defines development permission as planning permission or permission in principle. The Act does not require the Council to make an assessment on whether all of these plots will be delivered. The Council has not granted enough permissions to meet demand. The shortfall is 39 serviced plots, up from 28 when the Council determined the planning application.

The Council has highlighted that there is a resolution to permit permission for 1 serviced plot, and there are 22 applications pending determination, which if granted would amount to 34 serviced plots. The Council has also indicated that [address] Phase 2 comprises 975 dwellings of which 5% are proposed to be custom housebuilding or self-build units.

This indicates there is a flow of applications being received for self-build or custom housebuilding units and that the Council has a strategy for addressing the shortfall and meeting demand for serviced plots. Nonetheless, the Council has not indicated that all of those applications would be approved. Furthermore, there is a reliance on a strategic site. It has not been stated whether a planning application has been submitted for that development and, if so, the progress of it. I cannot definitively conclude that the strategy would address the shortfall and ensure that the Council is meeting its statutory duty going forward.

I acknowledge that there is an emerging development plan policy which supports the development of self-build and custom housebuilding units within the Limits to Development. However, there is no evidence that this policy has been examined or the outcome of any consultation on it. As such, very limited weight is ascribed to emerging Policy H7.

As the application is for outline planning permission with all matters reserved for subsequent approval, a planning condition could ensure that the proposed dwelling meets the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding as defined by the SBCH Act. This is regardless of whether the appellant owns another property in the area.

If granted, the planning permission would be a development permission for a serviced plot which would help the Council address the aforementioned shortfall and meet its statutory duty. As the shortfall has worsened and it is not clear whether the strategy would ensure that the Council meets its statutory duty, I ascribe great weight to the provision of a serviced plot. 2 Planning permission Ref. 15/000891/FUL

There would be economic benefits associated with the construction phase and through an increase in the local population. There would be social benefits associated with increasing the supply of housing in the area. These benefits attract further weight in favour of the appeal.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset to be weighed against the public benefits. In this instance, the public benefits would outweigh the significant weight I ascribed to the harm to the significance of DLHCA when considered as a whole.

Whilst it is not a reason for refusal, the proposal would result in the loss of a modest amount of best and most versatile agricultural land. Also, as above the proposal would conflict with the spatial strategy. There are no policies within the development plan which support development of this nature. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to the development plan when read as a whole.

However, the development plan is silent on the provision of self-build and custom housebuilding. As such, there are no relevant development plan policies and the provision of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework applies. For the reasons given above, the application of policies in the Framework relating to designated heritage assets does not provide a strong reason for refusing development. As such, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Paragraph 14 of the Framework indicates that where a proposal conflicts with a neighbourhood plan, it is likely that the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. This is conditional on the neighbourhood plan containing policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement. The NP does not include any allocations; therefore, the provision of paragraph 14 does not apply in this instance.

The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of DLHCA and would not be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area. It would also be contrary to the spatial strategy which directs the majority of development to previously developed land and sustainable locations where the need to travel would be minimised. The proposal would result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land which provides social and economic benefits. Combined, I ascribe very significant weight to the harm caused by the proposal.

Conversely, the proposal would help boost the supply of homes. In particular small sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area. In addition, the Framework advocates that the local planning authorities should support development for self-build and custom build housing. The Framework also indicates that the opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and that this should be taken into account in decision making. The proposed dwelling would be in proximity to [site address] and have good access to services and facilities, as well as public transport. Overall, I ascribe great weight to the benefits of the proposal which would outweigh the identified harm.

As the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. In accordance with paragraph 11 of the Framework, planning permission should be granted.

The Council has indicated the conditions that it considers would be appropriate if I were to allow the appeal. I have considered the suggested conditions in light of the guidance within the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.

Conditions specifying the time limits to submit applications and commence development, the approved plans, and the reserved matters are necessary in the interest of certainty.

A condition requiring details of biodiversity enhancement measures to be approved is necessary to ensure that the effect on biodiversity is mitigated, and to minimise any potential harm cause by the proposal.

A condition requiring a construction management plan is necessary to preserve the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and to ensure that there would be no harm to highway safety. This condition is required to be discharged prior to the commencement of works to ensure that measures can be implemented as construction starts.

A condition requiring a land contamination assessment to be approved and actioned is necessary to ensure that the appeal site is suitable for the proposed land use. This condition would need to be discharged prior to commencement of works to ensure that any harm from contaminated land is appropriately mitigated. Likewise, a condition requiring work to be suspended and for remediation measures to be agreed, if previously unidentified contamination is found, is necessary for the same reason. I have not included a condition that requires, in the event no remediation is required, the developer to confirm this to the Council, as it is not necessary to make the planning permission acceptable.

A condition requiring an archaeological field evaluation to be agreed and actioned is reasonable as the site has been identified as having an archaeological interest. It is necessary for this condition to be discharged prior to commencement to ensure that groundworks do not harmfully effect below ground features.

A condition requiring the proposed dwelling to be constructed as a self-build dwelling is necessary to ensure that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

An application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.

Details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with Location Plan (scale 1:2500, Drawing @A4).

No development shall take place until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If any contamination is found, no development shall take place until: i) a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; ii) the site has been remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale; and iii) a verification report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: i) additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and ii) a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

No development shall take place until: i) an archaeological field evaluation has been carried out in accordance with a specification and timetable that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and ii) safeguarding measures to ensure the preservation in situ of important archaeological remains and/or further archaeological investigation and recording identified in the archaeological field evaluation have been undertaken in accordance with a specification and timetable that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority

No development shall take place until a construction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved construction method statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

No dwelling shall be occupied until a scheme of biodiversity enhancement measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development or in accordance with a phasing plan that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be retained thereafter.

The residential unit hereby permitted shall be constructed as a self-build dwelling within the definition of self-build and custom build housing in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended): i) The first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be by a person or persons who had a primary input into the design and layout of the unit; ii) The dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied by that person or persons and their spouse, civil partner, partner and/or resident dependents (if applicable) as their principal private residence for a period of at least three years from the date of first occupation of the unit; iii) The Council shall be notified in writing of the person(s) who intend to take up first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted at least two months prior to first occupation.