Appeal 6002292

The appeal is dismissed.

The original application was made in outline with all matters reserved for future consideration apart from access. I assessed the appeal on that basis. I have had regard to the submitted drawings, but have considered all elements shown as indicative, apart from the proposed access.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the Council’s spatial strategy for the supply of housing, with reference to the accessibility of services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with reference to the High Weald National Landscape.

The appeal site is located outside of any development boundary, within the countryside. Robertsbridge is the closest settlement to the site, and it offers a range of day-to-day services and public transport options.

Policy OSS2 of the [name] 2014 (CS) sets out the spatial strategy for the Borough and directs development to the settlement areas. Policy RA3 of the CS seeks to limit the circumstances in which new dwellings would be created in the countryside. The proposed dwelling would not be provided in connection with farming and other land-based industries, nor would it be a ‘rural exception site’ to meet an identified local affordable housing need. As such, the proposal would conflict with the Borough’s spatial strategy.

CS Policy TR3 sets out that new development should minimise the need to travel, including to public transport, and have good access to employment, services and facilities.

Access to the site is via [address], which is a two-way single carriageway. To the east [address] connects to [address], which provides access directly into Robertsbridge. While the site is not far from Robertsbridge, there are no footpaths or street lighting for a good part of this journey. In addition, the land levels undulate and the roads have a meandering layout generally bordered by hedges and trees either side with limited stretches of grass verges. These conditions would likely make the route disconcerting to use for fear of safety, especially for lone users.

As such, while the volume of traffic along these roads may be small, and vehicles might travel at low speeds in this lane, as set out within the appellant’s [name] (HTN), walking as a matter of routine would likely be unattractive, particularly at dusk.

Cycling might be an option given the distance to Robertsbridge. However, the use of this mode of transport would be notably tempered by the confidence or proficiency needed to cycle along narrow, undulating country lanes, given the absence of cycle infrastructure around the site. Therefore, I am not persuaded that cycling would be a genuine transport choice suitable for everyday family needs.

In terms of public transport, the HTN identifies that the closest railway station to the site is located approximately 1.8km, and closest bus stops are located at some 1.8km to 2.2km away from the site. However, while those living in rural communities may be used to roads shared by different users, the characteristics of this journey as set out above, make it much likely that residents wishing to reach day-to-day services and facilities would use a car, which would be safer and more convenient.

The appellant’s Planning Statement and Appeal Statement refer to bus stops not far from the site. The Council advised that the bus service from these bus stops is extremely limited and therefore likely unsuitable for regular travel. As such, there is no convincing evidence before me that demonstrates that future residents would rely on this option.

Even when accounting for the rural location of the appeal site, where opportunities for sustainable transport would be more limited than urban areas, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the appeal scheme is poorly placed to promote both active travel on a regular basis and the use of public transport owing to its poor pedestrian and cycling accessibility. In essence, future residents of the appeal scheme would be reliant on private motorised transport, even if those journeys were to be short. Further, while the proposal would deliver electric vehicle charging charges, this offers no guarantee that future residents would own electric vehicles.

As such, the proposed development would not provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the Council’s spatial strategy for the supply of housing, with reference to the accessibility of services and facilities. It would be contrary to [name] OSS1, OSS2, OSS3, OSS4, RA3, SRM1 and TR3, Policy DIM2 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan 2019 (DASA) and Policies HO1 and IN4 of the Salehurst and Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Development Plan 2016- 2028 (2018) (NP). Amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure development takes place in the right locations and minimise the need to travel.

Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires that regard be had to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. I am also conscious of my duty under Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area.

The appeal is set within the HWNL, and its special qualities include a close network of winding, sunken lanes with scattered settlements and individual dwellings often strung out along them, interspersed with irregular fields bound by hedgerows, pasture and ancient woodlands.

To the west of the railway, the pattern of development within Robertsbridge generally includes linear development along [address], as well as cul-de-sac. However, [address] is a simple routeway, largely bounded by trees and hedges. Development in the lane comprises of occasional dwellings set within large plots of land interspersed with agricultural fields and woodlands. This provides [address] with an overall rurality, despite the proximity to Robertsbridge. Given the limited presence of built form within the lane, the character of the street scene is dictated by the field parcels, hedges and trees, which ensure that the natural and scenic beauty of the HWNL predominates.

The site is a parcel of land that is laid to grass and accommodates scattered trees. While it forms part of a wider residential property, [site address] , its largely verdant and undeveloped landcover set against the woodland and boundary hedging gives it a picturesque quality that contributes well to the landscape and scenic beauty of the HWNL. This is not diminished by the localised public views towards the appeal site. Moreover, its open appearance is important in maintaining the space and general absence of urbanising development between the host bungalow and the settlement boundary of Robertsbridge.

The proposed development would introduce up to two dwellings within the site, thereby resulting in the detrimental urbanisation and overall loss of a largely undeveloped parcel of land that makes an important contribution to the rural character of the area. Even if the site were to be considered previously developed land, the proposal together with the host bungalow would form a small ribbon of linear development that would be markedly at odds with the sporadic development along [address]. Consequently, irrespective of its density and scale, the proposal would appear conspicuous in its surroundings.

The appellant’s [name] (LVA) assessed the potential visual impacts of the development. The LVA found that the effect of the proposal would be limited to a short section of [address] immediately adjacent to the site. Nevertheless, the degree of change to the site as a result of the proposal would likely be discernible in localised public views, and the siting of the proposal would appear at odds with its distinctly rural surroundings.

While a reserved matter, the proposed landscaping would likely include native tree planting and hedge planting along the boundary with [address]. Given the potential scale of up to two dwellings, it is unlikely that planting would offer sufficient mitigation for the urbanising effects of the proposed development, even if their height and footprint were to be agreed by condition. As such, the proposal would fail to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the HWNL.

Thus, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, with reference to the HWNL. The proposal would be contrary to [name] OSS4, RA2, RA3, EN1 and EN3, [name] DEN1 and DEN2, and NP Policy EN3. Among other things, these policies support development that conserves the locally distinctive rural character and landscape features of the countryside and require all development within the HWNL to conserve and seek to enhance its landscape and scenic beauty.

Reference is made to an appeal decision1 pertaining to residential development within the HWNL. However, I have not been provided with the details and circumstances regarding this case, and therefore I am unable to draw any comparison with the scheme before me. The officer report supplied in relation to the development at Horsebrooks Farm2 found that that proposal would not be harmful to the NL, which is not the case with the proposal before me. [name] have had regard to the caselaw3 put to me by the appellant, this decision is of limited influence in the context of this appeal.

A unilateral undertaking (UU) pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has been submitted as part of the appeal to secure the proposed development as self-build dwellings. The appellant has clarified the ownership of the land and there is a site plan attached to the UU. [name] note the Council’s comments in respect of the UU, the wording within it is adequate for its purpose of a commitment made by the appellant to the Council. The obligation is clear and the wording proportionate to the nature and scale of the obligation being offered by the appellant. Therefore, I have taken this UU into account in reaching my decision.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. The Act sets out the relevant protected characteristics, which includes age and disability.

There is an identified need of the family who have submitted the appeal to live in an accessible home as they age and struggle with stairs. However, I have no compelling evidence that this scheme is the only way in which the appellant’s needs could be met. On this basis, whilst I have given careful consideration to this issue, I can only attribute limited weight to the personal circumstances of the appellant in my consideration of this appeal. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/U1430/W/24/3336599 2 [name]: RR/2023/1314/P 3 North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 65 P & CR 137. In a second case, [name] v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2017) EWHC 2057

Given the conflict with the Council’s spatial strategy for the supply of housing, and the harm to the character of the area with reference to the HWNL, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites, and the main parties do not dispute that the figure is in the region of 2.63 years. Consequently, the provisions of paragraph 11d) i. of the Framework should be applied. It states that in such circumstances permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. This includes policies relating to NLs.

The Framework seeks to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of National Landscapes. In contrast, the proposal would cause harm to the HWNL, and paragraph 189 of the Framework provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal. Consequently, I have not gone on to consider the scheme against the requirements of paragraph 11d) ii.

Set against the identified harm, the development would contribute to boosting the supply of homes within the Borough and would deliver up to two dwellings comprising accessible accommodation. As a result of the proposal there would be some ecological enhancements, as well as some social and economic benefits during construction and once the dwellings would be occupied. Further benefits have been identified in relation to the personal circumstances of the appellant. However, even recognising that releasing sites within the countryside may be required to assist in meeting the Council’s housing need, the benefits associated with the proposal would be small.

The Framework supports proposals for self-build dwellings. Both main parties are in agreement that there is an undersupply of self-build plots in the area. Given the limited number of dwellings proposed, this would carry moderate weight in favour of the scheme.

Therefore, whilst the conflict with the Council’s spatial strategy attracts limited weight in support of the scheme given the supply position, taken together the benefits of the scheme would not outweigh the substantial harm to the NL, a landscape designation with the highest status of protection.

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. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.