Appeal 6002234

The appeal is dismissed.

An appeal relating to a previous planning application for the erection of 3 detached dwellings, associated garages, private driveway and formation of access on the appeal site was dismissed in 20201. The appeal scheme is very similar to the previous proposal.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be suitably located having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities; and • whether the proposed development would preserve the setting of the [name] listed building known as [name].

Policy 2S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (adopted 2020) (the Local Plan) seeks that development is designed to promote health, safety and active living for all age groups, including by encouraging physically active lifestyles through the provision of sustainable modes of transport. Policy 53 states that wherever possible development should be located and designed to provide convenient access to local services by foot, cycle and public transport.

The appeal site is a parcel of unused pastoral land fronting onto [site address] , near the edge of the settlement of Wyboston. Existing residential dwellings are present 1 APP/K0235/W/19/3242315 close to the appeal site. Nevertheless, the appeal site is undisputably located within the open countryside.

The nearest settlement is Wyboston, which provides some limited services and facilities, such as a village hall, convenience store and public house. While the village hall is 100m from the appeal site, the majority of key services are located approximately 900m from the site, along the A1. I noted on my site visit that to reach the A1, individuals would need to proceed along [site address] by foot or bicycle, which has a narrow footpath, includes stretches with limited natural surveillance and has intermittent street lighting. This route would be particularly undesirable in winter months, after dusk or during poor weather. Beyond [site address] , access would include limited street lighting and an exposed footpath positioned directly adjacent to the A1. A footbridge with stepped access only would also need to be traversed.

I observed that bus stops with services to destinations including Roxton, which has a primary school and a limited number of other services and facilities, Bedford, [name] and Cambridge are also located on the A1. However, access to these bus stops would also rely on these same unsatisfactory routes. This is irrespective of the precise distance.

The nearest train stations are located in [name] and Sandy. Access to [name] train station would rely on the unsatisfactory routes described above to access the bus stops on the A1, or travel by private vehicle. Sandy train station is likely to only be accessible by private vehicle.

A public footpath also provides pedestrian access to [name], [name]. This route includes sections of unmade ground and has limited lighting. As such, although suitable for leisure use, it is unlikely to represent a desirable or realistic route to the services and facilities provided within [name], particularly in winter months or during adverse weather conditions.

I acknowledge that there are multiple businesses in Wyboston and the surrounding area, thereby enabling local employment opportunities. However, in many cases, accessing such employment opportunities would require using the routes described above. Some places of employment are likely to only be accessible by private vehicle.

Paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Nevertheless, in the context of the above, occupiers of the proposed development would be highly reliant on the use of private vehicles to access most services and facilities and to meet their day-to-day needs due to a lack of satisfactory walking and cycling routes.

In reaching my conclusions, I have also had regard to paragraph 83 of the Framework which aims to promote sustainable development in rural areas through housing located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Notwithstanding that future occupiers may support the limited nearby services and facilities, for the reasons given above in respect of accessibility, I find that the Framework’s advice on rural development would not provide support for the proposed development.

My attention has been drawn to a recent appeal decision for a site located relatively close to the appeal site2 where development was refused for the erection of 10 dwellings. The appellant suggests that the context for that appeal differed, with a limited case presented by that appellant in respect of locational sustainability and other factors having had a greater influence on the outcome. While that may be the case, I have similarly found that, in this case, residents of the proposed development would be likely to rely on private vehicles to access most services and facilities.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not be suitably located having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities. As such, the proposal is contrary to the relevant provisions of Policies 2S, 3S, 4S, 7S, 31, 53 and 87 of the Local Plan. Among other things, these policies seek new housing to be directed towards urban areas and service centres and for provision to be made in development for convenient access to services by public transport, cyclists and pedestrians.

[name], a [name] listed building3, lies to the west of the appeal site. As such, I have had regard to the statutory duty set out in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The listed building dates from the 17th century and was refaced in the 19th century. The special interest and significance of the building is largely derived from its historic and architectural interests, including in respect of the vernacular method of construction and retention of historic features. Traditional barns located to the east and south-east of the listed building, which form part of the building’s curtilage, reinforce the appreciation of the historic use of the building. However, it was apparent during my site visit that these buildings have been altered over time, with more contemporary buildings also in existence. This was particularly visible from the appeal site.

Pertinent to this appeal, the building’s special interest and significance are also derived, in part, from its setting which is open and rural, reflective of the historic use of the building as a farmhouse. The evidence before me demonstrates that the appeal site historically contained built structures and, as such, has not always been an open green space. Nonetheless, in its current form it contributes positively to the setting of the listed building by reason of its open, verdant appearance, evocative of the historic use of the building and surrounding land.

The proposed development would introduce built form onto the open pastural land, thereby eroding the currently rural, verdant setting of the listed building. In this regard, the proposal would have a harmful urbanising effect on the listed building.

The appeal site is physically and visually separated from the listed building by intervening barns, which form part of the curtilage listing, and a buffer of open space. The built form of the barns would limit the intervisibility between the proposed development and the listed building. Nevertheless, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the setting of the listed building and weaken the contribution that the setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset. 2 APP/K0235/W/24/3353144 3 List entry number 1114930

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 states that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.

The Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance require the category of harm to be explicitly identified, and the extent of harm within that category to be clearly articulated. Given the extent and siting of the proposed development, and mindful of the altered nature of the buildings adjacent to the appeal site, I find that the harm to the significance of [name] would be at the lower end of the spectrum of less than substantial harm. Nonetheless, the harm is of considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework sets out that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. The appellant sets out a supply of 3.46 years. The Council indicates that supply currently stands at 3.35 years. In either case, there is an undisputed lack of supply in the Borough. Although the proposed development would make only a modest contribution to the housing supply, it would, nevertheless, be a public benefit of moderate weight in the context of the shortfall.

There would also be some economic benefits arising from the construction of the development and following its occupation, including increased use of local services and facilities. The development would provide a 10% biodiversity net gain. I give these considerations moderate weight.

Collectively, these public benefits are of considerable weight. In this case, mindful of my duties under the Act, I conclude that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh the less than substantial harm to the setting of the designated heritage asset that I have identified above. Accordingly, the harm would have a clear and convincing justification. In this regard, a conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies 29 and 41S of the Local Plan would not occur. In summary, these policies seek development which protects and where appropriate enhances heritage assets and their settings and successfully integrates with the historic environment and character.

The appeal site is located close to, and forms part of the setting of, a further [name] listed building, Moat Cottage4. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in section 66(1) of the Act, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. The setting of the listed building predominantly comprises an open landscape, albeit with buildings present in the distance, including those adjacent to the appeal site. This predominantly verdant setting contributes positively to the significance of the listed building. 4 List entry number 1146457

Nevertheless, established vegetation limits the visibility of the appeal site and the buildings on [site address] from the listed building. Due to the distance between the appeal site and the listed building, and the intervening vegetation, I consider that the proposed development would preserve the setting of the listed building and the contribution this makes to its significance.

There is no dispute between the parties regarding the proposed surface water drainage strategy and biodiversity net gain. Nonetheless, these matters are normal expectations of new development and, as such, attract neutral weight.

The appellant sets out that the proposed development would meet requirements in respect of design and parking. Even were I to agree with the appellant on these matters, a lack of harm would effectively be neutral in my determination of the appeal. These matters would not weigh in favour of allowing the appeal.

The appeal proposal would not be suitably located having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities. As such, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

I acknowledge that policies adopted by the Council date from 2020. However, the Framework makes clear that policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the Framework and that due weight should be given to them according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. Policies relating to the spatial distribution of new housing and accessibility via sustainable transport modes are consistent with the emphasis within the Framework on directing growth towards locations which are or can be made sustainable, and prioritising sustainable travel. As such, I afford them due weight.

Notwithstanding this, as noted above, the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, with the parties indicating that supply currently stands at between 3.35 and 3.46 years. In these circumstances, paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged.

Paragraph 11d) establishes that where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless i. the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

[name] have explained above, I have found that the less than substantial harm to the heritage asset would be at the lower end of the spectrum and that this would be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. Consequently, there are no policies in the Framework relevant to the appeal site which protect areas or assets of particular importance which provide a strong reason for refusing the development. Therefore, the balance in paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework applies.

The proposal would contribute positively towards the supply of housing in an area where there is an undisputed shortfall and would reflect the aims of the Framework to significantly boost the supply of housing. Development would also deliver a biodiversity net gain and future occupiers would support the ongoing vitality of the community. Alongside the benefits once completed, the proposal would result in some economic benefits during construction. Nevertheless, given the limited scale of the proposed development, the contribution to housing supply and other benefits would be relatively limited in extent. I afford them moderate weight in the balance.

Balanced against this, the appeal proposal would not be suitably located having regard to the accessibility of services and facilities. The Framework makes clear at paragraph 110 that significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. Paragraph 96 specifies that decisions should aim to achieve safe and accessible places which enable and support healthy lives while paragraph 115 sets out that it should be ensured that sustainable transport modes are prioritised, taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location. Moreover, paragraph 129 supports development which makes efficient use of land, subject to taking into account the availability of services and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use. For the reasons set out in relation to the first main issue, I find that the proposal would wholly fall short of these expectations of the Framework.

Consequently, in this case, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.