Appeal 6002797

The appeal is dismissed.

During the appeal, the Charnwood Local Plan 2021 – 2037 (LP) was adopted by the Council. Both parties were provided with the opportunity to comment on the implications of this during the appeal. I have taken any comments received on this matter into account during my assessment of the development. I have afforded full weight to the LP and have determined the appeal in accordance with it.

The appeal site is located within the Thrussington Conservation Area and is within the setting of several [name] listed buildings. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area. Section 66 of the Act requires local planning authorities to have special regard to preserving listed buildings and their settings. I have had due regard to these duties within my decision.

The appellant has submitted a revised BNG metric for this appeal. This has been submitted to respond to one of the reasons given for refusal. Crucially, this document was not submitted to the Council at the application stage. [name] note that the Council have responded to this metric, I cannot be assured that this submission has been reviewed by all parties with an interest in this appeal. This is tantamount to the submission of new information. The Planning Inspectorate Appeals’ Procedure Guide makes it clear in chapter 16 that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the Council. I have not therefore considered this new information in this appeal as it would prejudice the Council, its decision and any interested parties.

The main issues are: • whether the site would be in a suitable location for housing; • the effect of the proposed development upon the character or appearance of the Thrussington Conservation Area; and, • whether the proposed development would provide a biodiversity net gain.

Policy DS1 of the LP establishes the spatial strategy for Charnwood, identifying Thrussington as an ‘other settlement’. The Policies Map defines the Limits to Development for each settlement within the hierarchy. Under this policy, new development is restricted to sites allocated in the LP, neighbourhood plans, or other land situated within the defined Limits to Development. Proposals that fall outside this spatial strategy are considered incompatible with the plan’s vision and objectives, and therefore do not constitute sustainable development. Consequently, such proposals will not be supported. Based on my assessment of the Limits to Development set out in the plan, the appeal site lies beyond those designated for Thrussington.

Policy DS1 also confirms that new development is to be directed not only to sites allocated within the LP, but also to those identified in neighbourhood plans. The Thrussington Neighbourhood Plan 2018 (NP) establishes a defined settlement boundary, within which the appeal site is not included. This reinforces that the Limits to Development have been set through both the adopted LP and the NP, neither of which lend support to development in this location.

Furthermore, Policy DS1 of the LP notes that for applications for housing, such as this appeal, in circumstances where the policies which are most important for the determination of an application are out-of-date, including for reasons of housing land supply or delivery, proposals will only be refused where any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. The evidence before me suggests that the Council can demonstrate a five-year housing land supply of 5.78 years. No convincing evidence to the contrary is before me. Therefore, the circumstances cited above are not engaged in this instance.

The appellant refers to an earlier stage of the LP process in which a revised settlement boundary for Thrussington was proposed, encompassing the appeal site. However, upon examination of the settlement boundary as set out in the adopted LP, it is evident that this earlier proposal was not carried forward to adoption. Consequently, the appeal site does not fall within the final, approved settlement boundary.

It is argued that neither the Council nor the Inspector examining the LP provided an explanation as to why the previously proposed amendment to the Thrussington settlement boundary, one which would have included the appeal site, was not pursued to adoption. It is requested that such justification is now required as part of this appeal. However, it is not within my remit to account for the reasoning of the [name] or to revisit matters considered during the plan‐making process. That is a matter which falls beyond the remit of this appeal. My role is to determine this appeal in accordance with the development plan as it currently stands.

My attention is now however drawn to the site-specific circumstances of the appeal site location. The proposal would be positioned between [name], the properties along The Green to the rear, and the built form of Thrussington to the south-east. This is within a close walking distance to the core of Thrussington. However, the surrounding environment contributes to a more rural character than this arrangement initially suggests.

To the front of the site lies a field separating [address] and [address], enclosed by hedgerow and a typical rural fence. During my site visit, [name] was largely screened from view by a substantial roadside hedge extending along [address]. Where glimpses are possible, the building presents as a modest, single‐storey structure with the appearance of a small agricultural unit. The appeal site is further separated from the settlement limits of Thrussington by a public footpath running alongside it. This footpath also marks a point in the highway where there is a bend in the road. Although only slight, this reduces the visibility of the settlement core, further emphasising its position at the Limits to Development. When comparing the Limits to Development shown on the map with the physical situation on the ground, the distance between the proposed dwelling and the properties to the rear are not readily perceptible from [address].

Collectively, these features create a distinctly rural character at the edge of Thrussington, where one would expect built form to diminish and separation distances to increase, as it does at the appeal site. For these reasons, the location of the appeal site does have a stronger relationship with the surrounding countryside than the settlement of Thrussington, albeit somewhat limited due to the surrounding built form around it and its close distance to the village core.

I note that the parties contend that the proposal would be designed with the appearance of a barn. In such countryside locations, it is not unusual to note barn or agricultural related structures, especially beyond the settlement boundary. I explore this matter in further detail in the next main issue.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal, in this location, would conflict with Policy DS1 of the LP and Policy H1 of the NP. Collectively, these policies seek for development to be located within the settlement limits of Thrussington.

The appeal site lies within the Thrussington Conservation Area (CA). The Thrussington Conservation Area Character Appraisal 2013 describes the historic development of the settlement and identifies the features that contribute to its special architectural and historic interest.

The significance of the CA is largely derived from its tight, enclosed street pattern, characterised by historic red‐brick buildings, some of which are painted white, clustered around the village green. This area forms the focal point of the settlement and represents its historic core, where development is most concentrated. The surrounding countryside, particularly visible along [address] and [address], provides an important rural backdrop that reinforces the simple and traditional character of the CA. The appeal site makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA due to its position at the edge of the built form as an area of green space. This site does have an immediate relationship with the adjoining countryside, as concluded in my previous main issue.

In my assessment of the proposal and its effect upon the character or appearance of the CA, I am mindful of my duty imposed by Section 72(1) of the Act. The appeal proposal would be set back away from the highway in a similar position to [name]. It would promote a front hedge situated along the boundary with a central access point from the highway, similarly to [name].

The parties note that the design rationale of the building is to follow the appearance of a barn. It would utilise a simplified design for those parts visible along the front elevation from [address]. It would utilise a modest height, it would include a provision of small window openings and would host a simple roof form which is enhanced by simple roof lights. Its front elevation would thereby appear as a simple barn structure which has undergone a conversion.

However, to the rear, the building would incorporate larger window openings, fully glazed patio doors and a dormer structure which would have a greater affinity to a typical dwelling. It could be argued that the visibility of the rear of the building would be limited. However, once constructed, this would be visible to the properties located to the rear of the appeal site, where the entrance to the CA would be appreciated. As such, there are both successes and shortfalls in the proposed design of the scheme. But, I am not entirely convinced that the resultant development would be comparable to the red brick barn structures in this area of Thrussington.

It follows that concerns were raised by interested parties with regard to the use of a timber cladding material, is not typical of buildings in this location. During my site visit, it was readily apparent that buildings, including barn structures such as [name], were constructed in a weathered red brick, which in some cases was painted white. Therefore, whilst timber is used in the construction of barns in some contexts, it does not appear to me that this is a material which is common in this area of Thrussington. [name] had been in a position to allow the appeal following my assessment of other main issues, this is a matter where the use of an appropriately worded planning condition would have been explored with the parties.

Furthermore, the provision of a building in a green space, which makes a positive contribution to the CA, and one that has an immediate relationship with the adjoining countryside, would involve a notable level of change. Built form would be in a position where there is currently none. However, I do not find that the provision of an appropriately designed barn structure, which would be surrounded by built form on three different sides, would be unexpected in this context. In countryside locations, it is not unusual to note barn or agricultural related structures, especially beyond the settlement boundary.

To draw these considerations together, in consideration of my duty imposed by Section 72(1) of the Act, I find that the design of the building, would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. This harm would be less than substantial. [name] am of the view that a barn style building, of which it is contended the proposal would create, would not be unusual in this site-specific context, I am not of the view that the design proposed would achieve this for the reasons set out above.

As such, the proposed development would conflict with Policy EV8 of the LP, Policies S1, D1 and D2 of the NP and chapter 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Collectively, these policies seek for development to be of an appropriate design which complements the local vernacular and character of the village, including that it should seek to preserve the CA and be contextually responsive to the historic built environment of Thurssington.

As previously noted, the appeal site lies within the setting of several [name] listed buildings. The Council considers that the design of the scheme would not have a significant effect on the setting of these buildings and that no harm would arise. In discharging my duty under Section 66 of the Act, I find no reason to disagree with the Council’s assessment. Given the separation between the appeal proposal and the listed buildings, together with the limited degree of intervisibility, I am satisfied that their settings would be preserved.

Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) introduced a statutory framework for [name] (BNG), and it applies to all planning applications for non-major development submitted on or after 2 April

Under the statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the [name] (BGC), which requires that at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met.

The Council refused the proposal on the basis that the application did not correctly identify the value of existing habitats affected by the proposal in its metric. It is suggested that the appellant would be willing to provide the required off-site BNG credits. However, the Biodiversity Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) notes that developers must calculate the number of credits they need, which should be agreed with the local planning authority. It further notes that the number of credits shall depend on the number of units a development will need to meet its 10% BNG requirement, based on the biodiversity value before and after the development is complete. The development proposal does not adequately address this matter.

The PPG clearly states that BNG is also not solely a post-permission consideration. To ensure that the BNG objective is effectively achieved and can be properly discharged, it is essential that biodiversity is integrated throughout the planning process. Applicants are expected to address BNG at the earliest stages and to incorporate it into site selection and design. The appellant’s approach therefore falls short of the proactive and embedded consideration required by national guidance.

The PPG sets out the minimum information requirements for BNG that must accompany a planning application. This includes, amongst other things, a completed biodiversity metric calculation that establishes the pre-development ecological value of the site. These requirements will allow consideration of existing habitat baselines for relevant applications so there is a common understanding about the pre-development biodiversity value of the development’s onsite habitat at this stage. In determining an application, it is essential to assess whether any proposed condition relating to BNG could realistically be discharged. In this case, the absence of key evidence, most notably, a comprehensive biodiversity metric, means there is no basis to justify an exception to this established principle.

On this main issue, the appellant contends that the grass verge outside of the redline boundary is not in the applicants control and therefore questions how these can be required to be assessed. Nevertheless, I note that the proposed plans indicate that the grass verge is to be replaced by a 1.2-metre-wide footpath. On this basis, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed development would indeed be affected by the proposed development. It is also contended that the Council offered limited feedback on this matter. The requirements for BNG are a national requirement. It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that the BGC is discharged, either through themselves or a suitably qualified individual.

In view of the above, the proposal would not comply with the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Policy EV6 of the LP. Policy EV6 sets out how development proposals shall be expected to provide a 10% net gain in biodiversity.

Reference has been made to other developments within the vicinity. However, the information surrounding these developments is limited. Therefore, I cannot ascertain as to the reasoning behind these decisions. Reference is also made to the allocation of a housing site. However, this is in a different location, and therefore in a different spatial context to the appeal site. In relation to both points, every planning decision must also be made on its own merits.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 outlines that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Framework indicates that a decision should be taken in accordance with the

The proposed development and the appeal site would be located in an open countryside location. Policy DS1 of the LP and Policy H1 of the NP seek for development to be located within the settlement limits of Thrussington. When an assessment of the physical relationship of the appeal site and the settlement is considered, I conclude that it does indeed have a greater affinity to the open countryside than Thrussington. Nevertheless, this is limited due to the surrounding built form around it and its close distance to the village core. I am therefore of the view that this incursion would be small, and if designed appropriately, it would not be unusual for a barn style building to be located in this edge of settlement location.

However, the harm to the CA as a result of the proposed development would be less than substantial, as set out in the terms of the Framework. The Framework makes clear that great weight should be afforded to the conservation of heritage assets. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that such harm be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

It is acknowledged that the development would contribute to the overall housing supply. In a period of sustained housing pressure, the delivery of even a single dwelling carries some limited, yet positive weight. There would also be short‐term economic benefits and employment during construction, and future occupants would contribute to local expenditure once the dwelling is occupied. These considerations also attract limited, but positive weight.

However, the identified public benefits, taken together, do not outweigh the harm that would result to the character or appearance of the CA. In the absence of any significant public benefit, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Accordingly, the scheme conflicts with the approach to heritage assets set out in chapter 16 of the Framework. As such, the Framework does not lend support to the proposal through the application of the public benefits to this planning and heritage balance.

The aforementioned benefits of the proposed scheme have also been considered against my findings in relation to matters relating to biodiversity. This matter presents a further failing of the appeal of which the benefits of the scheme do not outweigh.

The proposed development would be located outside of the Limits to Development of Thrussington. However, material considerations surrounding this specific location justify a decision other than in accordance with the development plan on this specific matter. However, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, nor would it comply with the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in relation to matters relating to BNG.

For the reasons given above and taking all relevant material considerations into account, the appeal should be dismissed.