Appeal 6002810

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted an application for outline permission with all matters reserved. I have considered the appeal on this basis and treated the submitted drawings for two detached houses as indicative only.

As part of my overall assessment, my attention is drawn to previous Inspectors’ decisions for new housing close to the site1 that are relevant to the proposal before me together with their reasoning behind coming to balanced conclusions.

The main issues with regards to this proposal are: • Whether the location would be consistent with local and national policies relating to housing in rural areas, with particular regard to access to everyday facilities by a range of means of transport; and • The effect on protected species.

The site lies within the settlement boundary of the village of Stutton. It consists of a bungalow set within a large plot on the corner with [name] and [name]. The existing bungalow would be demolished to accommodate two new detached dwellings on the site. The local area is residential in character.

Policy SP2 of the Selby District Core Strategy (2013) (CS) is a spatial development strategy that seeks to focus development through a hierarchy of Selby, followed by 1 Appeal reference APP/N2739/W/16/3164518 & APP/N2739/W/17/3169716 defined local service centres and designated service villages. These are considered to be the most sustainable locations for growth. ‘[name] such as Stutton are not identified for further planned growth as they are considered less sustainable than both local service centres and designated service villages. The policy only allows for housing outside defined development limits in a limited number of circumstances. As such, there would be conflict with CS Policy SP2 which seeks to focus development into higher order settlements.

Turning to the matter of local housing land supply, according to the appellant, the Council’s 5-year housing land supply is around 2.6 years. The lack of a 5-year housing land supply is not disputed by the Council and on this basis they do not have a five year supply of deliverable housing land as required by paragraph 78 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Therefore, relevant policies for the supply of housing cannot be considered up-to-date.

As such it triggers paragraph 11d of the Framework which sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development in these circumstances. The Framework explains that where the development plan is out-of-date, permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. This is also reflected in CS Policy SP1.

This does not however alter the statutory function of the development plan and under planning law, decisions must still be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. However, in the context of this appeal, the policies of the Framework are important material considerations, and I must consider whether or not the requirements of paragraph 14 of the Framework and Policy SP1 would be met. Main issue 1 - Access to facilities

Stutton provides minimal services to support the local community including public transport options. The relationship to the closest market town of Tadcaster, a sustainable village, involves a [address] to the edge of the town to a parade of local, but limited shops. There is a likely expectation that occupants would be required to travel outside the village for essentials to meet their day-to-day needs. They would be reliant on the private car to travel elsewhere, in particular to Tadcaster offering more specific everyday amenities.

The site may lie within a close geographical area to York and Leeds. However, as cities, they are not sufficiently close enough to the site to serve everyday needs of future occupants. The reliance on digital services to meet the needs of future occupants may be an option for them. However, it cannot be reasonably relied upon to replace the need to travel, especially when requiring schools and leisure facilities, made more important as the dwellings would be family sized units. Electric charging facilities for each dwelling would not be reasonably sufficient to overcome the fact that the local area is unsustainable in terms of access to facilities.

Taking all of the evidence into account, I am not persuaded to come to a different conclusion than the previous Inspectors with regards to the unsustainable location of the development with a strong reliance on the private car for future occupants. Allowing further development in such locations would only lead to a cumulative increase in the number and distance of less sustainable trips in the area and potential to undermine growth in other more sustainably located areas.

To that end, the proposal would not be suitably located with regards to services and would not provide a sustainable site for housing in terms of its access to everyday facilities and a reliance on the private car. It would conflict with Selby District Core Strategy policies SP2 and SP4.

The site is a vacant building set in natural landscaping in a green, rural environment, close to the open countryside. The Council’s ecologist raises the need for an up-to-date ecological survey to determine the impact of the proposal on ecological priority species and most specifically bats, a [name].

As the bungalow would be demolished to accommodate the proposal, an appropriate bat survey is required to establish if bats are present on site, at the early stages of planning. I see no reason to disagree with this view from the Council. It is not appropriate to condition a bat survey for the purposes of mitigation as this would not meet the tests of paragraph 57 of the Framework.

The appellant agrees to provide biodiversity off-site by means of purchasing credits from Natural England who will pool the contribution with other financial contributions to secure enhanced biodiversity elsewhere. This does not apply to protected or priority species and its own specific mitigation is required.

To conclude on this main issue, the proposal would not meet the requirements of Policy ENV1 of the SDLP and Policy SP18 of the SDCS and the Framework in their combined objectives to protect the natural environment.

The appellant has brought to my attention another appeal decision2 for new housing on a site with the address as Tadcaster. There is no evidence before me to suggest that site and the site before me at appeal share precisely the same circumstances. Therefore, I apply limited weight to this example.

They also refer to an application3 granted by the Council in outline permission to demolish a bungalow and the replacement with two new dwellings within Stutton. The precise details are not before me to comment upon however. In any case, I must consider each proposal on its own merits.

There may be no adverse impact to the living conditions of the local residents raised by the Council at this outline stage. However, this is neutral in the overall scheme of things and neither weighs for or against the proposal.

I have concluded that the proposal would be contrary to CS Policy SP2 and SP4 and that it would be in a location with poor access to everyday facilities by a range of means of transport in conflict with the objectives of the Framework. Although CS Policy SP2 is out of date due to the lack of five year housing land supply, this does 2 Appeal reference APP/U2750/W/25/3362145 3 Application reference 2017/0442/OUT not mean that the policy is irrelevant. Indeed, there remains a broad consistency between the aims of the policy and the Framework in terms of focussing development in locations with good access to services and facilities and actively managing patterns of growth to make fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling opportunities. As such, some weight should still be afforded to this policy, though it is not apportioned full weight.

I am mindful that the circumstances of the previous appeal decisions whereby the tilted balance was also engaged. These decisions also referenced the poorly accessible location in terms of proximity to everyday services and facilities within Stutton itself and the reliance on the private car that would conflict with the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability as set out in paragraph 8 of the Framework. As a result, the development would also conflict with its economic dimension in terms of not providing housing in the right places.

Balanced against this is the addition of one dwelling to the local housing supply. [name] have given regard to this in the context of the five year housing land supply, a single dwelling uplift in net housing supply would make only a very small contribution to the shortfall to this, even if it is optimising site density, and thus I attach only limited weight to this factor.

Having assessed the development proposal against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole, I find that the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the small uplift in housing numbers. Furthermore, I have found that the proposal would not safeguard protected species and therefore this weighs heavily against the proposal. As a result, the application of paragraph 11d) of the Framework does not indicate that permission should be granted and the proposal does not represent sustainable development. In this regard, the development would also conflict with CS Policy SP1.

I have considered all matters that have been raised and conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which lead me to determine the appeal otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.