Appeal 6002611

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was submitted in outline form with all matters reserved. I have determined the appeal on the same basis and therefore any details on the drawings relating to matters of layout, scale, appearance, access or landscaping I have considered as illustrative.

One of the reasons for refusal of the application related to visibility from the access along [address] and the suitability of the road to accommodate traffic associated with the proposal. However the Council have confirmed that additional information provided by the appellant has addressed their concerns on this issue.

In light of the above, the remaining main issues are: i) whether the development would be suitably located with regard to the Council’s spatial strategy; ii) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; iii) whether affordable housing should be required; and iv) the effect on the setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

It is agreed by the parties that the appeal site falls outside of any settlement boundary. Policy SP03 of the Part 1 Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan (2023) (the ‘JLP’) states that development outside development boundaries will only be permitted where it fulfils any of four criteria. The relevant one of these is that it would accord with one of the other policies in the JLP listed in Table 5; the most relevant of these is policy LP01 which relates to infill housing development.

Policy LP01 allows for infill development where there is a cluster of at least 10 well related dwellings. It defines infill as the filling of a small undeveloped plot in an otherwise built-up highway frontage.

The appeal site comprises part of a larger field currently used as a paddock. The Council advise there is a gap of around 8m between the site boundary and the east boundary of the field, and there is another gap of around double that distance, to the west field boundary. The neighbouring land to the west is undeveloped and stretches to the junction with [address]. As there would be substantial gaps to the field boundaries and as there is no neighbouring built form to the west on this side of [address], the development would not fill in a gap in an otherwise built-up frontage. Furthermore, as the site is wide, and wider than both the extent of built form to the east and the field to the west, I would not consider it to be a small plot.

In addition, as illustrated in the appellant’s Statement of Case, there are only nine dwellings in the cluster focussed around the junction of [address] and [address]. The two dwellings to the east are separated from the cluster by the substantial width of the appeal site, and the field opposite, plus significant vegetation, such that they are not perceived as part of that cluster. Instead they appear as two individual houses, similar to other scattered houses in the wider area. The development would not therefore be within a cluster of 10 well related dwellings. The fact that the Council consulted 10 nearby dwellings as part of their notification process, has no bearing on the interpretation of the policy.

As the proposal would conflict with this initial part of policy LP01, I need not consider the three further criteria that any such development must also meet.

In summary, the proposal would represent unsuitably located development beyond a settlement boundary. It would therefore conflict with policy LP01 and consequently also policy SP03 as described above.

The appeal site boundary has been drawn to include one access point and the block plan illustrates that this would serve a parallel estate road to serve the five units. The arrangement of a separate estate road would not reflect the surrounding area where all the dwellings are served by their own access points. Even if less than five units were provided, the access point would still probably be shared and so an estate road of some form would most likely be needed. This would represent a more urbanised arrangement, conflicting with the rural character of the area.

Most of the nearby properties are detached and 11⁄2 storeys. The provision of detached houses which, the appellant suggests, would be 11⁄2 storeys, would be in keeping with the established character of the area in this regard. The linear layout of the development, and the plot sizes, would also broadly reflect that along [address]. Also, although the houses would be newer than the existing houses, that would be inevitable of any new development.

Nonetheless, overall, the development would contrast with the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with JLP policy LP24 which requires development to be compatible with its location.

JLP policy SP02 sets out that affordable housing would be required on sites of 0.5ha or more. The application form shows the site measures 0.49ha, so would be below the threshold.

However, part 7 of the policy states that proposals must avoid artificial or contrived subdivision of a landholding in related ownership to circumvent requirements. Although it is not indicated on the submitted drawings that neighbouring land is in the appellant’s ownership, it is clear from the evidence1 that the appellant lives at [address] and keeps horses on the field within which the appeal site sits.

Although the plot depths are comparable to those of other properties nearby, which would leave sufficient space to the rear for the appellant’s horses to graze, I see no reason why the appeal site should not fill the width of the field or include the hedgerow at the front of the site. If it did, the site area would inevitably exceed 0.5ha and so would be liable for a contribution towards affordable housing provision.

The land to either side is shown on the plans as being left for [name] (BNG), but there is no reason why this land should be excluded from the appeal site given it is in the same ownership. Moreover there is no reason why the land set aside for BNG is so large, particularly in view of the fact that no details of BNG have been finalised as yet.

As such, it is considered that the site has been artificially contrived so as to avoid the requirement to provide affordable housing. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with policy SP02 as detailed above.

There are a number of designated heritage assets near the appeal site. To its east is [address], to the southwest is [address], and to the west, on the opposite side of [address], is The Walnut Tree. All of which are [name] listed buildings. The K6 phone box in front of The Walnut Tree is also [name] listed.

[address] and The Walnut Tree are both attractive detached dwellings with render and thatched roofs. The Council suggest they may have originally been farm workers accommodation and [address] an original farmhouse, which is not disputed. There is no substantive evidence before me, however, to demonstrate they were all connected. Their significance therefore mainly stems from their aesthetic and historic quality, all dating from the 17th century, with their rural surrounds making a modest contribution to that.

In terms of the impact of the development, [address] would be detached from the proposal with only very limited opportunities for intervisibility; The Walnut Tree would still be perceived in its rural surroundings, particularly the open field to its side; and although the gable end of [address] would be seen from within the site, there would be a vegetated gap between the development and the listed building and it is unlikely that it would be seen in the same vistas as the proposal given the mature trees and hedges along [address]. Overall, although the 1 As set out in the Heritage Impact Statement proposal would involve substantial built development on a paddock in a rural area, the settings of these listed buildings would not be significantly affected and certainly not to the extent that the significance of the listed buildings would be harmed.

The significance of the K9 telephone box is as a historic example of communication in rural areas. Its setting is informed by its location amongst a handful of houses in a rural location. The development would not affect that setting or its significance.

Further afield, The Brambles is a [name] listed building on the west side of [address]. As this is further from the site than The Walnut Tree, its setting and significance would not be affected by the proposal.

The Council suggest other nearby buildings, including Sunnyside to the northeast, and the dwellings at [address] Cottage, [address] and Hillview to the west side of [address] may be non-designated heritage assets given their 19th century age and their use of flint in their appearance. However, given these buildings are no closer to the site than the listed buildings and, because they are non-designated and so are of lesser significance, it is considered that the proposal would not harm their setting or their significance.

In summary, the development would not cause harm to heritage assets. It would therefore accord with policy LP19 of the JLP which aims to safeguard the historic environment adding that all designated and non-designated heritage assets must be preserved, in accordance with section 66 of the Planning and Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990 and their significance, including any contribution made to that significance by their setting.

The appellant considers the Council’s housing land supply figure may be less than the 7.84 years the Council suggest. However there is no indication they do not remain to have a five year supply. Accordingly, paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) is not engaged.

The appellant also advises that the site has reasonable access to local services and facilities necessary for day to day living, largely within [name] just under a mile away, commensurate to its rural location. I accept that the development could assist in supporting local services in nearby villages, and that the JLP recognises that small scale development can maintain the vitality of rural communities. However, the support provided by five additional units to services nearly a mile away would be limited. Similarly any other economic benefit, such as during the construction period, would also not be significant. As such I give these benefits only limited weight.

The support for small and medium housing sites in paragraph 73 of the Framework is acknowledged. But the paragraph also advises that great weight should be given to using suitable sites within existing settlements. As the site is outside of any settlement, I only give the benefit of it being small, moderate weight.

The development would fail to accord with the spatial strategy, would detract from the character and appearance of the area, and would artificially avoid making a contribution to the provision of affordable housing. The lack of harm to the setting of heritage assets, and the benefits outlined above, do not outweigh those harms.

As such, the proposal would fail to accord with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.