Appeal 6002831

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of the appeal, revised plans were provided to reduce the footprint of the house on Plot 4. This does not fundamentally alter the proposed development. As no party would be prejudiced, they can be considered in reaching a decision on the appeal. The reason for refusal concerned with the proximity to a protected ash tree has therefore been overcome.

These are: • Whether the proposal would be in a suitable location having regard to relevant development plan policies relating to the spatial strategy, the settlement hierarchy and the countryside; • The effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Maxey Conservation Area and the effect on the setting of adjacent listed buildings; and • The effect on highway and pedestrian safety.

The appeal site comprises an open, grassed area immediately to the west of [address]. On the other side of it is a paddock associated with the bungalow at [name]. [address] is narrow and unlit. A public right of way runs along the site frontage behind the hedge. The western return boundary of the land is also formed by hedging.

According to Policy LP3 of the Peterborough Local Plan the overall strategy is to focus the majority of new development in and adjoining the urban area of the City of Peterborough. Policy LP2 expects that the location of new development should accord with the settlement hierarchy. The proposal would be just outside the settlement boundary of Maxey, which is a Small Village. It would therefore be in the countryside. The policy establishes that development in the countryside will be restricted to particular types but none of those mentioned in the policy or any set out in Policies LP8 or LP11 are applicable in this case. There would therefore be a broad conflict with the spatial strategy.

The appellant portrays this as a “technical conflict” with relevant policies but there is more to it than that even though the site adjoins the defined settlement. Policy LP2 confirms that residential development outside village envelopes will, by definition, be contrary to the vision, objectives, strategy and policies of the Local Plan and should be refused. It is also suggested that the proposal would comprise a modest and logical “rounding off” between [address] and the western hedgerow. There is no provision in policy terms for the completion of residential clusters and the new houses would, in any event, be adjacent to undeveloped land on three sides. The scheme is therefore not justified on this basis.

As such, the proposal would not be in a suitable location having regard to relevant development plan policies. It would be contrary to Policies LP2 and LP3.

The appeal site lies at a point of transition between the village and the rural landscape of agricultural fields and woodland to the north and west. The property at [name] is a visual ‘outlier’ to the nucleus of Maxey and does not form the perceptible edge. This function is performed by [address]. The consequence of this is that the proposal would noticeably and significantly spread the village outwards in a westerly direction. The houses have been designed with accommodation in the roof served by dormers in order to limit their scale but they would still be readily apparent from [address], especially through the site access.

Development would occur in depth with the four houses and their garages arranged around a cul-de-sac. This would give rise to a suburban appearance which would be at odds with the sensitive peripheral setting of Maxey as it merges into the countryside where looser, more organic forms of development might be expected. Indeed, the proposal would appear to sprawl westwards in an incoherent manner away from the group of development around the [address]/[address] junction. This would be detrimental to the established form and character of the village. This adverse impact is not obviated by the presence of the strong lines of boundary vegetation which would enclose the new houses.

The scheme has sought to reflect the local vernacular and palette of materials and has taken cues from [address]. This was a brownfield development on a former coal yard. Nevertheless, those houses are part of the local scene and it is reasonable to reflect the immediate context that they provide. However, the homogenous appearance of the houses and their regimented layout would reinforce the impression of a suburban enclave. Furthermore, the proposed design does not overcome the more fundamental objection to the effect on the character and form of Maxey due to the location of the proposed houses.

As such, there would be harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. However, that harm would be limited and wider landscape character would be maintained. There would nonetheless be a conflict with Local Plan Policy LP16 which expects all development proposals to positively contribute to the character and local distinctiveness of the area.

There are relevant legal duties at sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990.

Maxey village developed as a ‘poly-focal’ settlement with various clusters, including one at [name] to the east of the appeal site. This part of the Conservation Area is centred around the Scheduled Monument of the 12th-century castle, the [name] and its model farm complex and surrounding [name] listed buildings. It is the part of Maxey that most strongly retains its historic character around the central green ‘triangle’ at the road junction.

Closest to the appeal site on the western edge of this group are [name] and [address] which are both [name] listed buildings. [name] is an imposing two and a half storey gabled building of the 18th century. Its historic interest stems from its age and architecturally it is notable for the external materials, including a steep Collyweston stone roof and balanced proportions. [address] is a coursed stone rubble cottage with a thatched roof. Its historic and architectural significance derives from its medieval origins, including the plan form and a 14th century blocked window.

These historic buildings add markedly to the value of the Conservation Area. However, the qualities of this heritage asset also comprise the open fields and paddocks that define and shape the form of the historic settlement. This includes the appeal site. Therefore, if the houses were built, the contribution the land makes to its significance would be lost and so there would be a negative impact on the Conservation Area. In combination with the houses at [address], the balance would materially change between a historic group surrounded by undeveloped land to an area where buildings of modern origin were of equal pre-eminence.

The proposal would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Maxey Conservation Area contrary to Local Plan Policy LP19 on the historic environment. However, in the words of the National Planning Policy Framework, the level of harm would be less than substantial and at the lower end of that spectrum.

The group of listed buildings around the green have a strong and unspoilt character. However, all of them, including [name] and [address] face towards each other and the [address]/[address] junction. They therefore are not orientated towards the appeal site and have no direct relationship with it. In general terms, they ‘turn their backs’ onto the western approach from [address]. As a result, the appeal site plays a very limited role in providing a setting for the listed buildings.

The house on Plot 1 would be glimpsed past [name] and [address] but would not “loom” in the background. Consequently, it would not detract from the core at [name] or spoil the significance of the closest listed buildings to the appeal site. They would continue to be seen and understood as part of the wider historic grouping. Approaching from the west the “sense of arrival” is not experienced until the appeal site has been passed. In more distant views from [address] the impression is of a mix of buildings on the edge of the village, including [address], rather than a sense that heritage assets are ahead.

Therefore, although the approach to them would change, the proposal would not compromise the setting of any of the listed buildings at [name], particularly [name] and [address].

Local Plan Policy LP13 establishes that permission will only be granted where appropriate provision has been made for safe access for all user groups. [address] is only of sufficient width for one vehicle to pass. In the vicinity of the appeal site are indications that vehicles have been compelled to use the roadside verge in order to avoid one another. There are no footways and the road is a designated [address] [name].

Although there would be an intensification in the vehicular use of [address], the estimated trip generation arising from the proposed development equates to four two-way movements during peak hours. The appellant’s traffic count recorded existing peak hour volumes of seven two-way vehicle movements. This is alleged to have been undertaken outside the time of peak agricultural activity. However, there is no strong evidence to refute the contention that [address] is a lightly trafficked rural lane. The appellant’s calculation that the probability of conflict between two vehicles meeting or passing simultaneously is 0.03% in the afternoon peak hour has not been disputed.

Traffic movements connected with the proposed houses would also occur outside of peak hours and service, delivery and other vehicles could be expected to visit from time to time. However, the likelihood for conflict between on-coming vehicles along the short, straight stretch between the appeal site and the [address] junction would be extremely small. The risks to highway safety would accordingly be negligible.

The public right of way ([name] 5) offers scope for future residents to access village services and facilities on foot. Although it is unreasonable to expect all rural footpaths to be hard surfaced and lit, this route nonetheless has its limitations. For example, the path would be likely to be very muddy after a period of wet weather. Realistically it would therefore be an unattractive proposition at certain times. It seems more likely that any journeys on foot would initially be along [address]. However, having regard to the number of proposed houses, this activity is also likely to be limited. As a result, undue hazards due to pedestrians encountering approaching vehicles would not ensue.

Existing cycle flows along [address] were recorded to be no more than two during either of the peak hours. This also indicates that the likelihood of conflict between the additional vehicles generated and cyclists would be insignificant.

As such, the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway and pedestrian safety and there would be no conflict with Policy LP13.

The Council’s latest five year land supply position statement (July 2025) shows that it can demonstrate a 4.88 year supply of deliverable housing sites which is below Government expectations. The deficit equates to 133 dwellings. The shortfall is therefore not large and the quantum of development proposed is modest. Nevertheless, the provision of additional units in an area of under-supply is a moderately positive feature of the scheme.

To help its economic strategy succeed, the Local Plan refers to the need for large, top of the range houses to enable business leaders to live locally. Paragraph 6.4.7 gives an indication of what constitutes a prestige home. Whilst not all of the criteria listed are met by the proposal it can reasonably be assumed to fall into the bracket. However, Local Plan Policy LP9 is concerned with preventing the loss of large houses in generous plots and so does not lend support to the proposal. Nevertheless, the supporting text refers to making provision for new properties in this sector of the market and the proposal gains limited support in this respect.

Although the proposal retains existing hedgerows and uses locally distinctive materials there would be harm to the Conservation Area and its green infrastructure would not be improved. As such, no heritage related benefits would occur.

The site is on the edge of a settlement that is designated as a Small Village. The extent of nearby services and facilities is correspondingly not great. There are four buses a day towards Peterborough. It would be feasible to access the village on foot even though the footpath link may be unsuitable at times. The site is located on a designated cycle route that provides a link in the direction of [name] and the Peterborough Green Wheel. However, the low level of existing use of [address] indicates that this is not especially popular. The proposal would therefore not contribute positively to promoting sustainable transport and this aspect of the scheme would be of neutral effect.

The proposal would result in the mandatory biodiversity net gain requirements being met and also offers scope for bat and bird nesting opportunities. These ecological enhancements moderately favour the proposal.

There would be short-term economic benefits associated with the construction of the houses and local residents would be likely to spend in the locality as well as paying Council tax. The advantages in supporting the rural economy have not been quantified but this matter supports the proposal, albeit to a limited degree.

Various other matters have been raised in representations many of which have been covered in the officer report, including neighbour amenity and trees. In any event, none of them add to the objections identified. The on-going boundary dispute is a civil matter.

The proposal would not be in a suitable location for housing having regard to relevant development plan policies relating to the settlement hierarchy and the countryside. There would be harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would also fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Maxey Conservation Area. As such, the proposal would not accord with the development plan.

On the other hand, there would be benefits arising from the delivery of four houses in an area where supply is falling behind and of a type which would help meet a particular identified need. There would also be small advantages in ecological and economic terms. Overall, these positive considerations are not great in magnitude and are comparable in weight to the limited visual harm and the less than substantial heritage harm.

With reference to paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework the public benefits identified would outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of the Conservation Area. Given the housing land supply position and as there is no strong reason for refusing the development proposed, paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework is relevant.

As referred to by the Inspector in the appeal decision at Glinton, the Council has a good past record of housing delivery (Ref: APP/J0540/W/25/3367425). It was noted that targets have been exceeded in the past and the latest [name] result is 125%. Therefore, it is stretching a point to say that the current marginal shortfall indicates that the Council’s housing strategy is not working. It is also claimed that this is temporary but no detail is given as to how the supply position will be rectified and the emerging Local Plan is at an early stage.

Nevertheless, the small deficit that exists and the past performance in housing delivery means that the negative weight attached to the conflict with the spatial strategy policies in the Local Plan is only just less than significant. Whilst the Government’s objective is to boost significantly the supply of homes, the Framework also confirms that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led. The failure of the proposed development to adhere to the priorities for the distribution of development in Peterborough is therefore a matter that counts strongly against the proposal.

Consequently, the adverse impacts, comprising the undermining of the locational policies for residential development and the harm to character and appearance and a heritage asset, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the provision of additional housing and the benefits to the economy and the natural environment. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the proposal is unacceptable and the appeal should be dismissed.