Appeal 6002022

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against South Kesteven District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The description of the proposed development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. I have, however, removed the superfluous wording ‘revised proposals following S25/0302’ to ensure a more concise form of words.

The grid reference in the banner heading is also taken from the application form. This locates the site as shown on the submitted drawings, which is land to the side of [site address] (No 1) and has been added for completeness.

The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (the 2015 Act) provides a legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding but does not distinguish between the two. Whilst the description of development does not refer to the term self-build, the planning application and appeal do. I have therefore used this term in my decision to encompass both types of development for the sake of simplicity.

The main issue of this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site is land to the side of No 1. The land subject to the appeal has planning permission1 comprising, amongst other matters, the change of use to residential curtilage, and is currently laid out as grass and is largely open to [address]. The currently undeveloped nature of the appeal site makes a 1 S24/1165 (the previous planning permission) positive contribution to the spaciousness and open character of the area and provides visual relief between No 1 and the rear boundary to those properties on [address].

[address] is closed to through vehicle traffic, with a turning head located immediately to the front of the appeal site. Part of the appeal site and the open space adjacent have a number of bollards set within them which extend approximately up to the pavement which links [address] to [address]. These ensure that the area remains open and free from vehicles, and forms part of the vista when looking towards the appeal site from further south within [address].

Properties located to the same side as the appeal property are predominantly gable-fronted detached dwellings with forward projecting garages set to the side, with parking and amenity space to the front. Whilst properties on [address] may have been extended, from the evidence before me, these do not create an additional dwelling. Furthermore, while these may vary in style, they sit comfortably in their plot, and the position of both the house and parking provides a rhythm to the streetscene. Moreover, the extensions to these properties do not diminish the openness of the streetscene.

I acknowledge that the proposed dwelling would result in a similar gable-fronted design and height of dwelling as those nearby properties, and that it would be set on a similar front building line as properties on the same side of [address]. I do not find either of these to be unacceptable. However, the plot is narrower than No 1 and the majority of nearby dwellings. The position of a dwelling in this location would result in it appearing, in practical and visual terms, cramped within its setting. Therefore, the similarity in design and height does not overcome the awkward and constrained nature of the plot.

Almost directly in front of the appeal site is a turning area for the cul-de-sac, which at the time of my site visit had a car being washed. Whilst this resulted in the area being partially blocked for a temporary period, it also resulted in the car being parked forward of the main current allocated parking areas. The position of the car enclosed what should be a predominantly open area and appeared discordant with the current rhythm of parking and character of the streetscene.

The proposal would introduce two car parking bays in the part of the open space behind the turning area and bollards. This could result in two cars being permanently parked forward of the main parking areas on [address]. [name] acknowledge vehicles parked on the proposed driveway would unlikely impinge upon vehicle movements, stationary vehicles in this location would nevertheless be visually intrusive to the current unobstructed nature. Their position would also likely disrupt the current pattern of parking to the frontages. Furthermore, the detached location of the parking would further exacerbate the appearance of the proposed dwelling appearing confined within its plot.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the previous planning permission, which they contend constitutes a fallback position. This permission relates to, amongst other matters, the erection of a two-storey side extension and single-storey garage. The consideration of a fallback position is a well-established principle; however, for significant weight to be afforded to this, there not only needs to be a real possibility of it being carried out, but it would also need to be equally or more harmful than the appeal scheme.

I acknowledge that approved plans2 show that No 1 would be significantly extended, and that its flank elevation would project closer to the boundary with properties on [address] than it currently does. However, the element closest to the boundary would be largely single-storey, and the curved section of open space would be largely retained. Therefore, even if the footprint and floor area of the proposed dwelling would be similar to the approved extension, its design retains significantly more openness between No 1 and the boundary with [address] and open space around the turning head than the appeal before me. It also grants planning permission to extend an existing property and does not create a new one. The approved extension, in this instance, is therefore materially different to the proposed dwelling. I am therefore not persuaded that a fallback position involving the extension to No 1, even if there is a realistic prospect of it occurring, would represent either an equal or a more harmful outcome compared to the appeal scheme. Consequently, it is not a factor weighing in the proposal’s favour.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with Policies SP3 and DE1 of the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2011-2036, which collectively seek to ensure development responds to the character of the area and does not have an adverse impact on the streetscene. The proposal would also be contrary to section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which, amongst other things, requires development to be sympathetic to local character.

With regards to the Supplementary Planning Document, [name] for Rutland & [name] 2021 (SPD), I have not been referred to a particular part of the lengthy SPD. As such, I am unable to assess the proposal against its overall aims and objectives in relation to design.

The proposal would provide a single self-build dwelling to the local housing supply. The Council confirms that it has not granted sufficient plots to meet the identified need. There is also no dispute that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of housing sites.

The proposal would therefore help address both shortfalls and therefore accord with the Government's aims of boosting the housing supply, including those wishing to commission or build their own homes. These are of significant benefit. There would be some temporary economic benefits generated by the construction of the dwelling, and thereafter, following occupation and also bring a small number of additional residents to the area who would contribute to the local economy. I afford moderate weight to these benefits.

Nevertheless, I have identified that it would conflict with the policies designed to ensure development responds to the character of the area and does not have an adverse impact on the streetscene. These policies are consistent with the aims of the Framework in terms of development being sympathetic to the local character. This alignment increases the weight given to the policy conflict. Accordingly, the conflict with these policies results in the development conflicting with the development plan when taken as a whole. 2 Enclosure 2

Paragraph 11d) of the Framework requires that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, developments should be granted unless3, any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having regard to increased housing delivery, sustainable development location and making effective use of land.

This applies to applications involving the provision of housing in situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. As the Council are unable to demonstrate sufficient supply, it follows that paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged.

In terms of the proposed development, the starting point is that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

In this case, the adverse impacts of the proposal in terms of the long-term harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the area would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. This includes having particular regard to key policies outlined in paragraphs 135 and 139.

The proposal, therefore, does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development given by paragraph 11 of the Framework.

I acknowledge that the appellant has sought to address the Council's concerns outlined in his preceding planning applications4. However, even if I have found the design and scale of the proposed dwelling to be acceptable, its position on land which currently makes a positive contribution to the spaciousness and open character would still result in a proposal that would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Similarities within the officer report between the proposed development and the two earlier refused applications are not within the scope of my assessment, which must focus on the planning merits of the appeal proposal.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the emerging Barrowby Neighbourhood Plan (August 2025) and Policies 1, 2, 3 and 3B contained within it. The Council confirms in its officer report that this is Regulation 16. Given that it does not form part of the statutory development plan, I give this limited weight.

An absence of harm in relation to the amenity impacts is of little weight within my assessment, which must focus on the planning merits of the appeal proposal.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 outlines that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 3 Paragraph 11d) ii. 4 S24/0389 & S25/03032

The proposed development would result in a small increase in the Council’s overall housing numbers, which would boost the housing supply. It would also bring a number of benefits to the local economy, namely during its construction and in the subsequent occupation. When combined with the Council being unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, collectively, these matters weigh significantly in favour of the proposed development.

However, the adverse impact of the proposed development in terms of the long-term harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the area would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. This attracts greater significant weight that outweighs the benefits associated with the proposed development.

The proposed development would therefore conflict with the development plan, and there are no identified other considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.