Appeal 6002748

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to relevant development plan policies, the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; • whether the proposal would be consistent with local and national policies regarding housing in rural areas; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether groundwater used as a public water supply would be capable of being safeguarded; and • if the development is inappropriate development, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances.

The appeal site is a piece of land accessed from [site address] , within the Doncaster Green Belt. The site is hard surfaced and contains a loose array of containers, and outdoor storage of materials. It is set within a larger field, bounded by trees and the rear elevation of a substantial building, all of which provide a degree of enclosure.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Inappropriate definition is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Two exceptions have been put forward by the appellant. I have considered these below. Paragraph 154 (g)

One such exception listed at paragraph 154(g) of the Framework is the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previous developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Policy 1 of the Local Plan1, requires the openness and permanence of Doncaster’s Green Belt to be preserved, applying national planning policies including the presumption against inappropriate development except in very special circumstances. The policy test of ‘preservation’ is different to the test of ‘substantial harm.’ The requirements are therefore inconsistent with the Framework in this regard. As such, I have afforded limited weight to this policy test and have assessed the proposal principally against the most up to date policy and wording of the Framework.

There is no dispute that the proposal meets the definition of previously developed land as described in the Framework2. Given the large area of hard surfacing on the site, and its lawful use for storage purposes3, I see no reason to disagree. Consequently, whether the development causes substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt will determine its conformity with the exception at paragraph 154(g) of the Framework.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides advice on the factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt. Including, but not limited to, spatial and visual aspects, the duration of the development and the degree of activity likely to be generated.

The development would comprise permanent, built form, including dwellings, land re-modelling, car parking and access, such that spatial openness would be eroded. The degree of harm however is limited by the extent of the site area, and the degree of enclosure by surrounding features.

The dwellings would be permanent and would have an unnatural and uniform grass mound design, within the context of a predominantly level, and rural landscape. Together with the domestic accoutrements such as vents, rooflights and other equipment, and associated activity, it would harm the site’s visual openness. The site would have smooth rather than abrupt changes to its land form 1 Doncaster Local Plan, 2015-2035, [name] 2021 2 National Planning Policy Framework, Annexe 2: Glossary 3 21/00369/CPE by way of the curved design of the dwellings. Moreover, the glazed areas and the majority of domestic activity would be concentrated away from the publicly accessible lane. Consequently, the visual harm to openness, and harm arising from permanence and activity, would be moderate.

Therefore, there would be spatial and visual harm arising from the development, harm from its permanence and associated activity, however this would not amount to substantial harm to Green Belt openness.

I am mindful of the Inspector’s assessment of Green Belt openness in the previous appeal decision4. However, that scheme was assessed against the previous iteration of the Framework, which included a different definition of previously developed land and assessment of harm. Moreover, the Inspector makes reference to the development altering the site’s character and resulting in a reduction in its openness in visual and spatial terms. However, this does not equate to describing the harm to openness as substantial.

I therefore find that the proposal would fall within the exception set out under paragraph 154 (g) of the Framework. Accordingly, the proposal would not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

[name] have concluded that the proposal would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, I do not need to consider whether other considerations would amount to very special circumstances. Nor do I need to consider the case under the grey belt exception of the Framework.

Policies 1 and 2 of the Local Plan define the settlement hierarchy, allocating new homes to the Main Urban Area, [name], and [name] and Villages, in descending order linked to the percentage number of homes. More limited development is permissible in [name]. In so doing, the strategy focusses the concentration of new dwellings to the borough’s more sustainable locations.

In rural areas, paragraph 84 of the Framework states that new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless in certain circumstances. There is no definition of ‘isolated’ within the Framework, although according to the Court of Appeal5, ‘isolated’ simply refers to a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement. Its isolation will be a matter of fact and planning judgment in the circumstances of the case.

The Council’s Rural Development SPD6 provides useful guidance in this respect. It states that isolation is measured in relation to the defined settlements taking into account physical distance, sense of remoteness, and how well it may relate / be connected to, or be separated from, a settlement. It also takes into account matters such as practical reasonable ease of access to local services and facilities, and accessibility including to public transport and / or whether cycling and walking could be reasonably be used to access the property from a nearby settlement. 4 APP/F4410/W/24/3338443 [site address] 5 [name] v SSCLG, Greyread Ltd & Granville Developments Ltd [2018] [name] 610. 6 Rural Development Supplementary Planning Document, [name] 2024

Policy 13 of the Local Plan requires provision for sustainable transport including the encouragement of cycling, walking and public transport use amongst other things. This is broadly reflected in paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework which seeks to maximise sustainable transport solutions, and to ensure safe and suitable access for all users, amongst other things. Paragraph 83 of the Framework, states that to promote sustainable areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

There is no dispute that the site lies outside of any defined settlements, and that it is approximately 3km from Tickhill centre, and from the settlement of Bawtry and there is nothing before me to indicate that other community services and facilities are closer. Whilst there are large warehouses and dwellings in the vicinity, these are sporadically sited and are surrounded by large swathes of agricultural land and tree groups.

The site is located 700 metres along [site address] . A considerable length of this road is adopted, before becoming a single lane track on the approach to the appeal site. Nevertheless, it is an unlit road along most of its length other than lighting near to the appeal site, with no footways, and very little in the way of surveillance from other buildings. The road space is shared with vehicles, including those accessing the distribution centre, and during my daytime site visit, I observed regular comings and goings of vehicles, particularly lorries. Beyond [site address] , [address] continues, similarly unlit with no footway and no surveillance for an even greater distance before any settlement or footway is reached.

As such, the nature of the route, combined with the distance to services and facilities, would be undesirable for travel on foot or by bicycle. This would be the case particularly at night, during the winter period, and inclement weather. Verges allow pedestrians to step off the road in the event of conflict with vehicles, and signage is in place near to the site stating this. However, verges are not available along the entirety of the route, and in any case, this would not be practical for cyclists, people with impaired mobility or groups such as families. In addition, use of the route by pedestrians and cyclists would bring them in direct conflict with vehicles including lorries.

The bus stops provide regular services with connectivity to Doncaster interchange, and there are school services. I also acknowledge that opportunities to maximise sustainable travel solutions vary between urban and rural areas. However, given that the route to these stops is unattractive and has high potential for pedestrian and vehicle conflicts, I am not persuaded that residents would be incentivised to use them on a regular basis. This is the case regardless of the low instances of road accidents nearby. Moreover, whilst there is a public right of way network, connectivity to Tickhill is not direct, and it is only accessible by way of the unattractive route along [site address] .

The appellant refers to various appeal decisions in which the sites were assessed as being in a sustainable location, despite their distance from settlements7. I have limited detail in respect of the context of the sites, such as the desirability of walking and cycling routes, and proximity to other dwellings to determine how they 7 APP/R3650/W/24/335222; APP/J1860/W/24/3355129; APP/D1265/W/25/3364583; compare with the circumstances before me. As such my assessment in this case neither agrees nor disagrees with decisions made on these different sites8.

Accordingly, the proposal would be inconsistent with local and national policies regarding housing in rural areas. As such, the development would conflict with Policies 1, 2 and 13 of the Local Plan, and the provisions of the Framework.

The site is within an area of rural character, due to the extent of agricultural fields in the vicinity, tree groups, rural lanes and sporadic development. The flat and spacious landscape is interrupted only by the aforementioned features. The building to the rear forms a substantial and industrial scale backdrop to the site. However, there is green space between the appeal site and this building, as well as between the site and other built form, including the remainder of the distribution centre and dwellings. This spacing provides visual relief and a rural landscape context to the site. The existing site comprises low level storage, spread out around the site, such that it appears primarily flat and spacious.

The development would appear as two substantial, identical mounds extending across the site, with a central vehicle assess, and topped with prominent domestic features. Whilst the proposal would incorporate greenery and landscaping, the unnatural design, massing, and jarring domestic features, would be harmfully discordant with the surrounding rural landscape setting, even if permitted development rights were removed to restrict future extensions and alterations.

I conclude that the development would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy 44 of the Local Plan. This policy requires development to respond positively to the context and character of existing areas, amongst other things.

Policy D6 of the Neighbourhood Plan9, explains that a major part of the parish sits on a principal aquifer, where water is abstracted for human consumption, and which is particularly sensitive to any polluting activities or discharges to ground. [name] advises that the site is within Groundwater Source Protection Zone 3 (SPZ3). Whilst this is 4km from the nearest operational groundwater source, national guidance advises that SPZ3 is defined as the area around a supply source within which all of the groundwater ends up at the abstraction point. Permeable deposits such as sand and gravel may offer some protection to the aquifer, but this is variable due to differences in thicknesses and material types.

Policy D6 of the Neighbourhood Plan and Policy 55 of the Local Plan state that a risk assessment should be required to ensure sensitive waters are adequately protected, amongst other things. Policy 54 of the Local Plan requires development to avoid, or mitigate against pollution, such as to groundwater resources.

Paragraph 196 of the Framework requires the decision maker to ensure a site is suitable for its use, including remediation, taking account of ground conditions and contamination, amongst other things. 8 [name] v SSE [1992] 65 P&CR 34) 9 Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan, 2013 - 2028

The site had a former landfill use of unknown materials. The development incorporates elements including excavation, a borehole, on-site water treatment, soakaway system, and use of recycled materials within the construction. As such, there is the potential for interference of groundwater. For these reasons, a risk assessment including a strategy for avoidance or mitigation, is required. Without this information, there is no certainty that sensitive waters would be adequately protected.

The appellant considers this information should be a matter dealt with as a pre-commencement condition of planning permission. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that such conditions should be used only where there is a clear justification. This is likely to mean that the requirements of the condition are fundamental to the development permitted, that it would otherwise be necessary to refuse the whole permission.

[name] acknowledge that the Council considers the drainage design to be bespoke, this is not substantiated with evidence. From the information before me, the drainage proposal is not out of the ordinary. There is also nothing before me, such as application validation requirements, which indicate the information should have been provided up-front. Consequently, I see no reason why the risk assessment and any mitigation, could not be dealt with by way of pre-commencement conditions, requiring a phased approach informed by a risk assessment. [name] note that [name] advises the information should be submitted prior to the grant of planning permission, no reasons for this are provided.

Accordingly, groundwater used as a public water supply would be capable of being safeguarded by means of a pre-commencement condition. As such, and in this regard, the proposal would be capable of compliance with Policies 54 and 55 of the Local Plan and Policy D6 of the Tickhill Neighbourhood Plan, and the relevant provisions of the Framework.

It is demonstrated that vehicular access to the site can be achieved without detriment to highway safety, and the Highway Authority has not objected to the development. The development does not affect a National Landscape or other local landscape designation. It is also not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and it is capable of being carried out without detriment to the public water supply. However, an absence of harm in these respects does not carry positive weight in favour of the appeal proposal.

Interested parties support the proposal, citing the existing use of the site and its impact on residential and environmental quality. However, there is limited evidence of any such harm before me, and in any case, this does not outweigh the harm I have identified.

I acknowledge the appellants concerns over the Council’s assessment of the merits of the development. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

The appellant asserts that the development would amount to a net reduction of vehicle trips from circa 17, to 3 trips per day, and I am mindful that the lawful storage use of the site is unfettered with any restrictions. However, given the low level extent of storage, and the unmade, narrow access along the adjacent stretch of [site address] being unsuitable for large vehicles, I consider that the actual vehicle trips would be much lower. The TRICS data is also based on a standardised approach to uses and site area, rather than any site specific evidence. For these reasons, I give the benefit of the potential reduction in the number of vehicle trips, limited weight.

The dwellings are described as self-build. Under Section 2A of the Self-Build and Custom Housing Act 2015 (as amended) (the Act), there is a duty to grant a sufficient number of suitable permissions to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding within an authority area. I am told that the borough’s self-build demand outstrips supply by some margin, based on figures from the base period between 31 October 2023 and 30 October 2024. The Council has not sought to dispute the base period figures and instead relies on certain types of development such as infill for 1 or 2 dwellings, being generally self-build. However, this is not substantiated with any evidence pertaining to the definition of self and custom building within the Act.

The provision of two self-build dwellings would therefore contribute towards meeting the significant shortage of this type of housing within the borough, and by delivering a range of housing as required by Policy 7 of the Local Plan and the Framework. The dwellings would also provide a small contribution towards the overall housing supply, making effective re-use of brownfield land, which is also aligned with the Framework. I give these factors considerable weight.

A legal agreement would be the appropriate means to secure the dwellings as self-build, and I do not have such an agreement before me. I am mindful that the appellant has offered to provide a unilateral undertaking, however I have not pursued this as the matter is not determinative in my decision.

The development would incorporate renewable energy measures within the fixtures, design, construction and drainage proposals, and a net reduction in hardstanding. It is also intended that the dwellings would be off grid, and carbon negative, and I note Sheffield Hallam University expresses support for the scheme on the basis of opportunities for study. These are environmental benefits of the scheme, however there is limited information regarding such specifications and measures, such that I afford this matter limited weight.

The development would incorporate landscape and biodiversity measures including wildflower grassland, underplanted permeable surfaces, and hedgerow. In comparison to the existing hard surfacing, it would amount to a significant on site improvement to landscape and biodiversity. This is regardless of whether it would take time to grow. I am also not persuaded that a legal agreement would be required to secure the landscaping in perpetuity, since planning conditions could require a detailed scheme of planting, implementation, and long term maintenance and management. As the enhancements would be limited in extent and area, I give this matter moderate weight.

I am mindful that the mandatory requirements of [name] (BNG) require developments to deliver a BNG of 10%, unless exempt. Also, that the parties agree the development would be self-build. Regardless of this agreement, there is no mechanism before me for securing the development as self-build, as defined in the Act. The appellant has provided an updated BNG matrix, which demonstrates that BNG is capable of being met and exceeded. I am satisfied that the appellant has provided sufficient minimum information in this regard. In the event that the development is not secured as self-build, the [name] is capable of being discharged. It would be for the Council to determine whether any Biodiversity Gain Plan submitted under this condition is acceptable and secured.

The proposal is capable of safeguarding the public water supply by condition of planning permission. The proposal is also not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I give these factors neutral weight, as they amount to neither harms nor benefits.

For the reasons outlined, I afford the considerations and benefits considerable weight in favour of the appeal. However, the harms relating to the site’s location, impact on the character and appearance of the area, and overall conflict with the development plan are of greater significance.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the stated benefits would not amount to material considerations of such significance to lead me to conclude that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.