Appeal 6002676

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for one detached dwelling unit with car port and associated external works at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/0571/FULL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the character and appearance of the area and (ii) the adjacent non-designated heritage asset.

The reason for refusal states that the parcel of open land formed by the appeal site provides a valuable visual break in the built form between the northern and southern parts of the settlement, reinforcing the village’s linear form and enhancing its rural setting. However, a number of dwellings have been permitted on what is understood to have been a larger area of open land associated with the property referred to as [site address] . If there was previously a notable visual break between the north and south of the village, this does not exist anymore, and the appeal site is too small a portion of land to retain any such meaningful separation that might formerly have been apparent.

Furthermore, it is not in any event clear why a visual break is important in this location. Although some properties on the opposite side of [address] are set back from the road, there is no equivalent break to mirror that which is deemed important on this side of the road. The proposed dwelling would not compromise the settlement’s linear form and in fact would be consistent with it. With the addition of the new houses, this part of the settlement does not have a rural feel. On the contrary, there is a sense of a relatively high density of development and this being a built-up part of the settlement, with many dwellings being positioned either on the back edge of the road or pavement or set back at a higher level.

For these reasons, I do not find there is a compelling case to conclude either that the appeal site retained as open land/space makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area, or conversely that its loss and the construction of the appeal proposal would be harmful in that same respect. Consequently, the proposal accords with Policy R1 of the [site address] [name] 2014 (WNJCS) and Policies LH1 and SS2 of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2 2020 (SNLP), where collectively they seek to protect character and appearance.

The appeal site is located immediately adjacent to [name], which is identified by the Council as being a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). It is an attractive building and one which will have associations with the historical evolution of the settlement. Although its main front elevation faces onto [address], its northern side elevation is at present currently clearly visible across the appeal site. This view would be mostly lost as a result of the appeal development, although there would be a degree of separation maintained between the two buildings themselves.

The proposed dwelling would nonetheless cause harm to the setting of the NDHA, in terms of the loss of the view of its side elevation and the loss of spaciousness to this side. However, the Chapel is already hemmed in closely to its southern elevation, and I have found that in general the existing development in this part of the settlement feels dense and imposing on the street scene, and that this forms part of the character and appearance of the area. The main front elevation of the NDHA and its grandeur would be unaffected. These are mitigating factors against the harm that would arise. The detached car port would be small in size and set behind the proposed dwelling. It would not result in harm to the setting of the NDHA.

On consideration of these factors, I find that there would be moderate harm to the setting of the NDHA from the proposed dwelling. The proposal would not therefore conserve or enhance the setting of the NDHA, and in that regard it would fail to accord with Policy BN5 of the WNJCS. The decision notice further refers to Policy HE7 of the SNLP, but the wording of that policy suggests that it should only be applied to proposals for works to NDHAs themselves.

The tilted balance set out in paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged because the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. It has not been suggested that the provisions of paragraph 11d)i) are applicable in this instance. In terms of paragraph 11d)ii), this 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 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.

The Council does not suggest that the proposed dwelling would not be located in a sustainable location. It would represent an effective use of land and help to boost the supply of homes in the face of a housing land supply deficit, albeit a modest one. I have not found that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area, and the design of the proposed development would be appropriate for its surroundings. These are considerations which collectively carry considerable weight in favour of the proposal.

There would be an adverse effect in so far as there would be harm caused to the setting of the NDHA. This harm I have found would be of a moderate level, and it would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore applies.

The Delegated Report refers also to Policy GS2 of the SNLP, but the appeal site is not formally designated as a local green space in the development plan and therefore this policy is not relevant to my consideration of the appeal.

An interested party raises concern that the proposed dwelling would, when considered cumulatively with the dwellings already permitted, be an overdevelopment of the wider site. However, the density of development that would result would be consistent with that found in the surrounding area.

The proposal would result in moderate harm to the NDHA and as such fail to accord with the development plan, taken as a whole. However, I have found that the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies and this outweighs the harm that would result in that respect and the conflict with the development plan. Therefore, this is a material consideration which indicates that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

Conditions setting out the time period to commence development and the approved plans are required to provide certainty. Conditions requiring further ecological checks and relating to site clearance are necessary to protect ecological interests. Details of floor and ground levels are needed to ensure an acceptable visual integration, as is a condition setting out a period for landscaping and any necessary landscaping replacement. A condition requiring notification of any unexpected contamination is needed to address such an occurrence.

I do not consider that it would be proportionate to impose a maintenance requirement of thirty years in terms of biodiversity net gain (BNG), as this is a small site consisting of one dwellinghouse and there would not be significant onsite enhancement. The statutory BNG condition would however apply, but in accordance with guidance it is not necessary to impose this within the schedule of conditions. It is suggested that permitted development rights be removed for the enlargement, alteration or extension of the dwelling, on the basis of the density of the site and to protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers. However, the plot is not unduly small and is well separated from the nearest dwellings, and I find this to be an unconvincing justification.

It is not necessary to impose a separate condition relating to external facing materials, as an acceptable suite of materials is shown on the list provided, and that document forms part of the approved plans and details listed under condition

A condition is not needed to require obscure glazing to the first-floor window on the side elevation of the proposed dwelling, as there would be adequate separation to the nearest dwelling. The provision of electric vehicle charging points is a matter that is addressed under building regulations.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings/details: 2501-01, 2501-02, 2501-03, 2501-04, 2501-05, 2501-06, 2501-07, 2501-08, 2501-09, SK02, Project 2501 January 2025 [name] and [name], Design and [name], Noise Assessment for [name], Construction Environment Management Plan and Construction Management Plan and [name].

Prior to, and within two months of, the commencement of the development, the site shall be thoroughly checked by a suitably qualified ecologist to ensure that no changes in the status of protected species, which could be harmed by the development, have occurred on to the site since the previous surveys were carried out. Should any protected species be found during this check, full details of mitigation measures to prevent their harm shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved mitigation scheme.

All site clearance (including the removal of any vegetation or works to hedgerows) shall be timed so as to avoid the bird nesting season, this being during the months of March until August inclusive unless alternative provisions have been previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

No development shall take place until details of all finished floor levels in relation to existing and proposed site levels and to the adjacent buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the approved levels.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved [name] ([name]. 2501-02) shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the dwelling or on the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and shall be maintained for a period of 5 years from the completion of the development. Any trees and/or shrubs which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent for any variation.

If, before or during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until a remediation strategy detailing how this contamination will be dealt with has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved. ---------------------------------------------End of Conditions-----------------------------------------------