Appeal 6002185

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form for planning permission used an incorrect site address. The appellant and the Council have confirmed that the correct site address is “ [site address] , [site address] , Dodwell [postcode] ”. Therefore, I have used that address above.

The application form described the proposal as: “Outline application with all matters reserved except appearance and landscaping, for the erection of 1no self or custom build dwelling and associated works. Exemption from BMG, this property will be totally self sustainable and will be fitted with solar panels, air source heat pumps and waste regeneration unit. The site will have planted shrubs so not to impact the local environment or green space or the neighbouring properties”. Having requested comments from the main parties, the appellant has confirmed that wording is incorrect because appearance and landscaping are the reserved matters. The Council has not commented although they have had opportunity to do so.

The additional narrative about sustainability measures and planting does not describe acts of development. I have therefore used the following description in the banner heading above and determined the appeal on that basis: “Outline application with all matters reserved except access, layout and scale, for the erection of 1no self or custom build dwelling and associated works.”

The main issues are whether the site is suitable for the development proposed in respect of: (i) its location, with particular regard to the Council’s development strategy and access to services, facilities, and sustainable modes of transport; and (ii) its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The site is a parcel of agricultural land adjacent to the B439 in Dodwell. The [site address] [name] (the Local Plan) seeks to disperse development across the district to settlements that can support local facilities and/or have good access to nearby settlements that have such facilities preferably by means other than the private car. Development is therefore directed to the main town of [site address] , [name] and Local Service Villages. Dodwell is categorised as an “other settlement/village” therefore in an open countryside location for planning policy purposes.

The Council’s development strategy restricts development in settlements such as Dodwell to small-scale community-led schemes which meet an identified local need. While Policy AS.10(F) allows certain development types in principle, the appeal proposal is not one of those types. In any event, the policy requires proposals to be assessed against sustainable development principles, including minimising harm to landscape character and avoiding traffic increases on rural roads that would be harmful to the local area.

Existing scattered development in Dodwell comprises residential and other uses including care, tourism, and commercial. These may provide some employment opportunities for future occupiers but there are no other facilities in Dodwell for day to day living, so access to general services and facilities would require travel.

The site lies about 1.6 kilometres from [site address] ’s edge and around 3 kilometres from the town centre and its services. A bus stop is about 140 metres away with regular services to Stratford and Evesham. However, the absence of a footway on the same side of the B439 as the site would require crossing the road (and recrossing for Stratford-bound services). Given the B439’s traffic levels, 50mph limit through Dodwell and lack of lighting, I consider walking, or cycling to the stop would be unattractive and potentially hazardous.

The characteristics of the road would also deter future occupiers from choosing to cycle to Stratford. The outskirts of Stratford are within theoretical walking distance, however, the full range of services in the town centre are beyond that at approximately 3 kilometres away. While there are opportunities to make use of sustainable travel options, overall, future occupiers would be highly dependent on private motor vehicles to reach services and facilities essential for day to day living.

Accordingly, the site would not be suitable for the development, with particular regard to the Council’s development strategy and access to services, facilities, and sustainable modes of transport. There would be conflict with policy CS.15 Local Plan in that it seeks the distribution of development in accordance with the distinctive character of sustainable locations including restricting development in other settlements to small-scale community led schemes. Conflict with policy AS.10 of the Local Plan would also arise in so far as it aims to maintain and enhance the rural character of the District by thoroughly assessing proposals against the stated principles of sustainable development, identifying the forms of development which would be acceptable in the countryside, and limiting other types of development in the countryside unless covered by a specific policy in the Local Plan, fully justified, offering significant benefits to the local area and not contrary to the overall spatial strategy for the District.

The site is agricultural land enclosed by fencing and hedgerows. Dodwell has a dispersed settlement pattern, with undeveloped gaps that reinforce the rural character beyond [site address] ’s built-up edge. Dwellings exist in large plots on the opposite side of the B439. However, adding built form to the gap between [address] Cottages and [address], would disrupt the established rhythm of development on this side of the B439. Associated features including hardstanding, boundary treatments and domestic paraphernalia would suburbanise the open gap and erode its rural character.

The layout and scale indicate a large two storey dwelling with attached garage with extensive parking and turning areas, together with large garden space. It would appear at odds with the more modest dwellings, plot sizes and layouts in the vicinity on this side of the B439. While the site is enclosed with hedgerows there are gaps allowing views across the site and beyond. As such it would be an incongruous feature in the landscape in this location.

For these reasons I conclude that there would be an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and the proposal would conflict with the policies CS.5, CS.9 and AS.10 of the Local Plan in so far as they seek to maintain landscape character and quality of the District; seek proposals which will be sensitive to the setting, existing built form, neighbouring uses, landscape character and topography of the site and locality; and minimise impact on the character of the local landscape, communities and environmental features.

The appellant suggests that any excessive garden and hardstanding could be controlled by condition. However, layout is for determination at the outline stage, and the application seeks permission for the whole plot. In any event, while these areas contribute to the harm, reducing them would not remedy the wider character and appearance impacts I have identified.

The development is for a self or custom build dwelling which is supported strongly by national policy and legislation. The National Planning Practice Guide (PPG) requires development permissions to be given to enough suitable serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in the area. For the reasons discussed above I have found that the site is not suitable for the proposal. The Council confirms there is a shortfall of sites for self or custom build dwellings in the district and has suggested that if planning permission is granted, the dwelling could be secured as self-build by a condition. Even if it could be secured by condition, the benefits of a single self-build dwelling in this location are modest.

There are no policies in the adopted Local Plan for self-build dwellings, but the Council has drawn my attention to policies in the emerging plan. That is at an early stage and therefore the weight to be given to it is limited. For these reasons, the appellant contends that paragraph 11d of the Framework applies and policies which restrict the delivery of housing should be deemed out of date. However, despite the lack of specific self-build policies in the Local Plan, there are relevant development plan policies which weigh against the proposed development as discussed above.

Since the appeal was submitted the Council has confirmed that they can no longer demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, referring to a 2.74- years supply. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11d of the Framework, is applicable.

The application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance do not provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Therefore, Framework sets out that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to key policies that it specifies.

The Framework seeks to significantly boost housing supply and indicates that small and medium sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement for an area, and opportunities should be sought to support small sites to come forward including for self-build and custom-build housing. The addition of one self-build dwelling would make a small contribution to supply of such dwellings and there would also be modest economic benefits arising from the construction process.

The Framework advises that great weight should be given to the benefits of using suitable windfall sites within existing settlements. However, for the reasons set out above in respect of the main issues, I have found that the site is not suitable for the proposed development. Therefore, although I have had regard to this matter, the site being a windfall site does not attract the great weight envisaged by the Framework.

Although it is likely that future occupiers would use private motor vehicles to access day to day services and facilities, they could support the local services, facilities and public transport that do exist. As such the proposal would provide a small contribution to the vitality of rural communities consistent with paragraph 83 of the Framework. While the Council’s housing supply shortfall is significant, having regard to the single self-build dwelling proposed, I accord these benefits limited weight overall.

Paragraph 110 of the Framework indicates that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Accordingly, I give modest weight to the harm that would arise from the degree of dependence on and related impacts from private motor vehicles.

The restrictive approach to housing development in this location in the Council’s spatial strategy further curbs housing supply. In this regard the conflict with the Local Plan attracts moderate weight. However, the harm to the character and appearance of the area is also in conflict with the Framework in respect of its advice to be sympathetic to local character, surrounding built form and landscape setting as well as recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. This weighs significantly against the proposal.

Consequently, I find that that the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that would arise, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to the key policies relevant to the proposal including for directing development to sustainable locations, and securing well designed places.

The proposal conflicts with the development read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.