Appeal 6002394

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development on the planning application form and the appeal form differs slightly from that used by the Council on the officer report and decision notice. There is nothing before me to suggest that the appellant agreed to this change. As such I have determined the appeal on the basis of the description in the banner heading above.

The appeal is supported by a unilateral undertaking which seeks to secure the proposed development as a self-build dwelling. I address this later in the decision.

The main issues are: i) Whether the proposed development is in a suitable location with particular regard to the accessibility of services and facilities and the development plan policies on the re-use of buildings in the countryside and self-build housing. ii) The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings. iii) Whether the proposed development would be safe from the risk of flooding and whether it would increase flood risk elsewhere.

The site sits within the countryside. Whilst there is a small group of dwellings and agricultural buildings on the other side of [site address] , the area is largely undeveloped, consisting of fields of varying sizes bounded by hedgerows. This gives the area a distinctly rural character. The site is highly visible from the public right of way (PROW) which crosses the field adjacent to the site.

Policy SS1 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011 to 2031 (HLP) sets out the spatial strategy for the district and the proposed scale and distribution of development. The proposed development is not within and does not adjoin any of the settlements listed in criteria 1a) to 1e) of the policy where it directs growth. Criterion 1f) of the policy states that in other villages, rural settlements and the countryside, development will be strictly controlled.

The proposed development is for a self-build dwelling which would fall under the definition provided in the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). A unilateral undertaking has been provided to secure the proposed dwelling as a self-build dwelling. Policy H5 of the HLP supports the development of self-build dwellings in any location suitable for housing. The supporting text defines a suitable location as a location which is in accordance with the spatial strategy and the criteria set out in Policy GD2 of the HLP. Policy GD2 only permits development within or adjoining the built-up areas of certain settlements. As the proposed development is not within or adjoining any of these settlements it would not be supported by Policy GD2. Consequently, the proposed development would not be supported by Policy H5.

The proposed development is remote from the nearest village of Fleckney where there is a range of services and facilities. The distance would be beyond walking distance and the route to the village comprises a 60mph road which lacks any pavement or street lighting. As such it would not be safe or convenient to access services and facilities by foot. Accordingly, occupants of the proposed development would be largely reliant on private vehicle to access services and facilities. However, paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) allows for new homes in isolated locations, which by definition could be remote from services and facilities, where they comprise the re-use of redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting. Similarly, criterion 1c) of Policy GD4 of the HLP permits development in the countryside where it is for the re-use of redundant or disused buildings that results in enhancement to their immediate setting.

The proposal seeks to re-use and extend a disused stable building to form a new two-bed dwelling. The stable building is a modest and innocuous structure with a pent roof. The side and rear elevations of the building are currently timber clad, and the front elevation has exposed blockwork. The structure has a purely functional design but does not look wholly out of place in its rural setting.

The proposal includes an extension to the front elevation of the building, the majority of which consists of a flat roof with elevated roof lights. Whilst this would step in from the sides of the existing stable building and is mostly of a lower height, it would result in a substantial increase to the size of the existing building. The extension would not be subordinate to the existing building and by virtue of its design and position on the front elevation, it would result in a building which would no longer have any resemblance to the rural character of the existing stable block. The proposal includes a large garden area which would create a more domestic character and further diminish the rural character of the site and its surroundings.

In conclusion, whilst the proposed development is in a suitable location for the conversion of a building in the countryside, it would not respect the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings and would not therefore enhance its immediate setting. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy GD4 of the HLP. It would also be contrary to Policy GD3 as the extension would not be subordinate to the existing building and Policies GD8 of the HLP and F1 and F6 of the Fleckney Neighbourhood Plan (FNP) which amongst other matters seek to ensure development respects the character and appearance of a site and its surroundings.

I do not agree with the Council that the proposed development would be contrary to Policy GI1 which seeks to safeguard public rights of way. Whilst the proposed development would be highly visible from the PROW and this contributes towards the harm to the character and appearance of the site, the harm is not so significant that it would compromise the integrity of the PROW, given it would only affect a very small part of it. Consequently, there would also be no conflict with Policy F2 of the FNP which also seeks to protect public rights of way.

Part of the site is at risk from surface water flooding in the 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 1000 year events. A flood risk assessment (FRA) has been submitted which shows that the proposed dwelling would not be within the area at risk. The FRA indicates that given the topography of the site, surface water flooding is likely to overtop the western bank of the ordinary watercourse away from the proposed development.

The Council raised concern that figures 2-2 and 3-2 in the FRA which show ground levels in relation to the proposed development would indicate that the ground level at the access to the proposed dwelling would be 60cm lower than the floor level of the proposed dwelling. As such they argue that the land would need to be raised which would displace the flood zone.

From my site visit it was apparent that the ground levels adjacent to the access to the proposed dwelling do not drop off by 60cm as suggested by the Council. The levels were largely flat between the existing stable building and the edge of the site where it drops off to the pond. It would appear that the position of the proposed dwelling as shown in figures 2-2 and 3-2 in the FRA is incorrect and the proposed dwelling is closer to the road and further from the area at risk of flooding and where the ground levels fall away. This is evident from the positioning of the building in comparison to the red line and the access on the scaled plans compared to the aerial photographs in the figures in the FRA. Therefore, there would not be a need to significantly adjust levels to accommodate the access. Therefore, there is no compelling evidence that the proposed development would displace flood water.

The FRA proposes that runoff from the existing roof area and the proposed extended roof area would be drained into raised bed sustainable drainage system planters. This would provide betterment compared to the existing conditions associated with the stable building.

Given the above, the proposed dwelling would not be at risk from flooding and safe access would be achieved. The proposed development would not displace flood water increasing risks to the PROW and land outside of the development. Consequently, the proposed development would not be contrary to Policy CC3 and CC4 of the HLP which seek to reduce the risk of flooding. The proposed development would also not be contrary to Policy GI1 of the HLP or Policy F2 of the FNP.

The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended) requires a Council to keep a register of people who want serviced plots for self-build or custom housebuilding plots. It also places a duty on relevant authorities to give development permission for enough serviced plots to meet demand as evidenced by the register. Paragraph 73(b) of the Framework also supports opportunities for small sites to come forward for self-build and custom housebuilding. The appellant has also drawn my attention to excerpts from guidance issued by the Right to [name] Force1 and the weight it suggests should be given to the availability of self-build and custom housebuilding plots as well as its guidance advising that where there are no planning harms, it is possible that the statutory duty will be sufficient to indicate an approval even in the case of a minor departure from the

There is a significant shortfall in the provision of self-build and custom housebuilding plots with permission in the district. The Council do not state the level of shortfall, but the appellant indicates it is in the region of 172 plots. The provision of a self-build dwelling, which is secured by the unilateral undertaking, would help address this shortfall. However, as the proposed development only provides a single dwelling, the contribution to the shortfall is relatively limited. Accordingly, I attach moderate weight to this benefit.

The proposed development would re-use an existing building which aligns with paragraph 161 of the Framework in terms of reuse of existing resources. However, the proposed development also involves a significant proportion of new built development as a result of the extension. Therefore, I attach limited weight to this benefit.

The Council has confirmed it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and calculates that at present there is a 3.55 year supply. In that context, the provision of an additional home is a modest benefit of the scheme. Accordingly, I attach moderate weight to this benefit. The proposed development would also provide employment and support local businesses during construction, particularly small builders. However, the scale of this benefit would be negligible and therefore I afford this limited weight.

The Phase 1 Bat and [name] identifies the potential to improve roosting opportunities for bats through the provision of a bat box. However, this enhancement is relatively modest and therefore I afford this only limited weight.

Whilst the provision of housing suitable for older people is supported by the Framework, I have no compelling evidence on the need or any potential shortfall of this type of housing in the district. I acknowledge the personal needs and desires of the appellant for single storey living accommodation. However, there is no substantive evidence before me on how this need could not reasonably be met 1 The Right to [name] and Self-Build Planning Guidance PG3.3: NPPF and Right to Build legislation – Delivering appropriate permissions (January 2024 – Version 3) within the local housing market. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that in general planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. Accordingly, the personal circumstances of the appellant attract only limited weight.

The appellant has referred to a number of other appeals in support of their case. The circumstances with regard to the appeal at Langton Hall2 are different to those in this case as the Inspector there found that the proposed development subject to that appeal was in accordance with Policy GD4 which is not the case in this appeal. The circumstances are also different with regard to the [address] appeal3 as the proposed development subject to that appeal was a new build dwelling within the built-up area of an existing village and the Inspector found no harm to the character and appearance of the site or its surroundings. The appeal referred to at Sutton Lane4 related to a larger number of self-build plots therefore the magnitude of the benefits are not comparable. Furthermore, the Inspector did not find any harm to the character and appearance of the area. Whilst these appeal decisions provide examples of where weight has been given to the provision of self-build plots, as I have done above, they are not sufficiently comparable and accordingly I have dealt with this appeal on its own merits.

As the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is therefore engaged. 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, in these circumstances, the Framework states 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 for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The benefits discussed above, including the provision of a self-build dwelling, weigh moderately in favour of the proposal. However, the harm arising from the impact on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, which conflict with the Framework’s policies on securing well-designed places, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Policy GD1 reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in an earlier version of the Framework. Given my conclusions on paragraph 11(d) above, I find this policy would not provide support for the proposed development.

[name] have found no conflict with Policies CC3, CC4 and GI1 of the HLP and F2 of FNP, the proposed development is contrary to Policies GD3, GD4 and GD8 of the HLP and F1 and F6 of the FNP. As discussed above, Policy H5 does not provide support for the proposal. Accordingly, the proposed development is contrary to the development plan when read as a whole. The policies referred to above are consistent with the Framework in so far as they relate to the re-use of redundant and disused buildings in the countryside and the protection of character 2 APP/F2415/W/24/3340449 3 APP/G2435/W/25/3360649 4 APP/F2415/W/22/3303898 and appearance. Accordingly, I afford significant weight to the conflict with these policies.

In conclusion 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.