Appeal 6002068

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

An application for an award of costs was made by [name] against the East Lindsey District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

In the interests of clarity on the site address, I have included the reference to ‘Thimbleby’ as per the Council’s decision notice as well as the grid references provided on the application form.

The application form seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved for subsequent approval. During the application process, the main parties agreed an amendment to the description to ‘up to 9 dwellings’ and this is reflected on the Council’s decision notice. I have therefore considered the appeal on that basis.

Furthermore, as part of the appeal a revised ‘Proposed Site Plan’ ([name] J2139-PL-02) has been provided. Given that this is indicative only and the outline premise and maximum quantum of dwellings is unchanged, no party would be prejudiced by me having regard to this illustrative drawing alongside the details that were before the Council when it made its decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Thimbleby is a village formed of two mainly linear groups of built form providing a notable semi-rural character. One group is situated along [address]. The other extends along [address] and, together with properties including [address] and [address] Lodge, forms the eastern end of the village. The appeal site relates to part of a field which, together with a triangular piece of land containing a substation, provides a prominent visual break between the eastern end of Thimbleby and Horncastle. The estates in Horncastle at [address] and [address], share boundaries with the appeal site and are more typical of the suburban pattern of development at this neighbouring town. Given the very close proximity of these settlements, the space provided by the appeal site, remainder of the field and triangular parcel which all front [address], combine to provide well-defined visual relief between Horncastle and the entrance to Thimbleby.

The revised ‘Proposed Site Plan’ suggests that the front portion of the site could be soft landscaped and kept free of buildings and access points. While the precise details of these matters are reserved, this would rely on access being taken from [address]. However, the plan provided suggests that the application boundary does not link as far as the private drive spur within this neighbouring estate. The suggested link would also sit within an area that the Council suggests forms part of the public open space at [address]. Whilst the appellant suggests the neighbouring landowner has a contractual requirement to provide a link, I cannot be certain that this would be in line with the planning permission at [address], including any approved drawings and any legal agreements relating to the highway and public open space. A Grampian condition would not provide certainty that such issues could be resolved.

In the circumstances, the layout and separation distances between the proposed development and Thimbleby, as indicated in the appellant’s appeal statement, could not be guaranteed. There is the potential that a development of up to 9 dwellings would necessitate an access point taken directly from [address]. In that case, the development would be more likely to adopt a similar layout to that illustrated on the indicative layout drawing that was before the Council at the application stage. In that instance, an access drive would, in all likelihood, be situated roughly halfway between the respective outer extents of Thimbleby and Horncastle where they front onto [address]. Even accounting for existing vegetation, this would significantly diminish the perception of a meaningful gap and the experience for passersby on [address] would be one of near visual coalescence.

Furthermore, the parameters of the site which would likely necessitate a suburban arrangement. This would compound the erosion of the visual break currently provided by the gap, further diluting the defined shift from the town into a more rural character at the entrance to Thimbleby. The retention of existing vegetation, alongside any proposed planting and ecological enhancements, would be unlikely to be sufficient to successfully assimilate the development. Indeed, there is the potential that the development would remain highly discernible, particularly through gaps in vegetation, including at any access point from [address].

The appellant contends that the Council provided no quantitative or detailed landscape assessment. However, whether the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area in respect of the transition between Horncastle and the entrance to Thimbleby is a matter of planning judgement. Policies SP25 and SP10 of the East Lindsey Local Plan (2018) (LP) do not require the decision-maker to rely on quantitative landscape data in reaching that judgement. It is notable that the appellant does not rely on any detailed landscape assessment themselves to come to their own view.

I conclude, the proposed development would have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, the proposal would be contrary to [name] SP25 and SP10, which require development which maintains and enhances the character of the District’s towns, villages and countryside to protect the character and appearance of the area; and that for sites not identified on the [name], development will only be permitted on open spaces where unacceptable harm would not be caused to their appearance, character, or their role in providing a well-defined visual relief in an otherwise built up frontage and a prominent site at the entrance to settlements that provides setting for the built environment.

While LP Policy SP3 supports windfall housing immediately adjacent to towns and large villages, this support is conditional on the site being an ‘appropriate location’ which includes where the development would not significantly harm the character or appearance of the surrounding countryside or the rural setting of the settlement. In this instance and having regard to the policies of the development plan taken as a whole, the harm identified to the character and appearance of the area would render the site an inappropriate location for windfall housing. Whether or not the site has previously been referred to by developers as ‘Phase 2’, has suitable drainage and suitable access to services and facilities, these matters do not overcome the harm identified under the main issue.

The appellant has referred me to an outline application ‘500 metres to the north-west of the appeal site’. I am unaware whether that application has been determined. In any case, from the information provided, that particular site is not comparable to the more immediate relationship of the appeal site to the entrance to Thimbleby.

My attention has been drawn to a development which was allowed at appeal1, at Land north of [address], Horncastle. That particular development is set back much further from [address] and the entrance to Thimbleby, and the appeal site forms part of a group of fields that provide space between that development and [address]. Moreover, the development in that instance was for up to 300 dwellings for which significant benefits were identified in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply. The position relative to [address], the quantum of development and level of associated benefits are therefore not comparable. In any case, a new development plan including Policy SP25 has been adopted since the time of the Inspector’s decision. This states that development will only be permitted 1 APP/D2510/A/14/2214716 on open spaces where unacceptable harm would not be caused to their role in providing well-defined visual relief in an otherwise built up frontage and a prominent site at the entrance to settlements that provides setting for the built environment.

The Council has acknowledged that it is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land. Up to 9 dwellings would make a limited but important contribution to the shortfall along with associated social and economic benefits deriving from the construction of the dwellings and future contributions of occupiers to services and facilities in the local area. Collectively, these matters attract moderate weight in favour of the proposal.

However, the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. This conflicts with the requirements in the National Planning Policy Framework for developments to be sympathetic to local character and there would also be conflict with the identified policies of the development plan. I find that this is a matter of overriding concern and substantially and demonstrably outweighs the moderate weight applied to the benefits of up to 9 dwellings at this location.

As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply and planning permission should not be granted.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.