Appeal 6003021

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of one self-build dwelling at Greenacres, [site address] , Hampsthwaite, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02203/FUL, subject to the conditions in [name].

The appeal documentation included a speed survey and revised visibility splays to address the third reason for refusal related to highway safety. It also included a Countersigned Impact Assessment and Conservation Payment Certificate to address the fourth reason for refusal related to the impact of the proposal on protected species. These do not change the development proposed and other parties have had the opportunity to comment on them as part of the appeal process, so I am satisfied that nobody would be prejudiced by me taking these into account in my consideration of the appeal.

The Council have indicated that if this was my conclusion with regard to this additional information then in the light of it, they would no longer be pursuing the third and fourth reasons for refusal. From the evidence before me I agree with this position, and I have determined the appeal accordingly.

A Unilateral Undertaking was submitted as part of the appeal documentation. I will return to this later in my decision.

Given this the main issues in the appeal are: • Whether or not the appeal site is a suitable site for new housing having regard to the spatial strategy and the accessibility of the site to sustainable modes of transport; and • The effect of the proposal on the landscape and scenic beauty of Nidderdale National Landscape.

The appeal site is located in the hamlet of Swincliffe. This is not one of the settlements identified within the settlement hierarchy in Policy GS2 of the Harrogate District Local Plan 2014 – 2035 (adopted March 2020) (LP) and so for planning purposes, in accordance with the policy, it is located in the wider countryside.

[name] GS2 and GS3 indicate that in such areas proposals for new development will only be supported where expressly permitted by other policies of the plan or a neighbourhood plan or national policy. In the absence of a 5 year housing land supply, the Policy GS3 indicates that proposals for new housing will be considered in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in national policy and sets out the criteria which should be used to assess a proposal. The supporting text indicates that the criteria seek to ensure that development is sympathetic to the role and built form of the settlement and will not unacceptably harm the character of the countryside or heritage assets.

It is not disputed that [site address] Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, with the latest position being that they have a 2.3 year supply (and 2.2 years in the area covered by the former Harrogate District Council). As such, the provisions of Policy GS3 for when there is an absence of a 5 year housing land supply and the provisions of paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) apply.

Swincliffe consists of a small cluster of residential properties that vary in age and type. The proposed development of a single dwelling would be a proportionate level of development in the hamlet. The appeal site forms part of the wider garden area associated with Greenacres and the proposed development would be well related to the existing house and the other housing in the hamlet. Additionally, it would not alter the core shape or form of the settlement. Nor would it result in the coalescence of the hamlet with Hampsthwaite. The proposal would therefore accord with criteria A and B of Policy GS3.

The other two criteria in Policy GS3 require consideration of the impact on the character and appearance of the settlement and the surrounding countryside which I consider below.

Whilst there are no services, facilities or public transport in Swincliffe, Policy GS2 of the LP designates the nearby village of Hampsthwaite as a service village. The supporting text indicates that such villages generally offer a range of basic services and community facilities and are sustainable locations for development. It also highlights that Hampsthwaite is one of a number of service villages that offer a wider range of services and facilities and has both a primary school and a GP surgery. The village also has an hourly bus service to Harrogate and Leeds.

The road between the site and the centre of the village where many of the services are located has no footways or lights until you reach the village. However, there are grass verges to at least one side of the road and the roads are very lightly trafficked. Conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles are therefore likely to be limited and would not give rise to unacceptable highway safety concerns. I observed that the lack of footways does not deter people from walking along this and other local roads. I understand there is also an alternative route for at least part of the way utilising public footpaths in the vicinity.

Whilst these routes are unlikely to be attractive after dark or in inclement weather, during the daytime they provide a viable and attractive route to walk or cycle to Hampsthwaite, and the services it provides including public transport links to further afield. I also note that the distance from the site to the main services and facilities in Hampsthwaite is not dissimilar to that from some of the new developments on the edge of that village, albeit that that housing is within the development limits.

In addition, the appellant’s evidence indicates that the Ripley / Harrogate / Knaresborough off-road cycle route is located around 4.2kms from the site and using this it would be less than 10km to cycle from the site to Harrogate. This therefore would provide a viable and attractive way for future occupiers to cycle to the wide range of services and facilities in this town.

Bearing in mind this is a rural location, occupiers of the proposed development would have the ability to access services and facilities by various sustainable modes of transport and would not be solely reliant on private transport to meet all their day-to day needs. Thus, whilst Swincliffe is not a settlement identified in the settlement hierarchy, I consider the appeal site would still be a relatively sustainable location, and in line with the Framework the development would help to support services in Hampsthwaite.

I will conclude on whether this means the site would be a suitable site for new housing, after having considered matters relating to character and appearance required by criteria C & D of Policy GS3 below.

The appeal site forms part of the extensive garden area associated with Greenacres. It is largely laid to grass with occasional trees and at the time of my visit there was also some building materials stored on it. The land slopes gently away from the house and there is a separate vehicular access and an area of hardstanding located along the eastern boundary. A coniferous hedge with a wooden field gate separates the site from the garden area immediately adjacent to the existing house, and the other boundaries of the site are marked by stone walls and/or evergreen hedges/trees. These clearly separate the land from the adjacent agricultural fields.

Whilst often referred to as a ‘paddock’ in the evidence, there is no indication or evidence that is has ever been used for the grazing of animals. The consistency in the boundary treatment with the other parts of the garden, particularly along the roadside frontage, and the limited visibility of the site from the public realm, means it is read as part of the garden area of the host property. Whilst there was no domestic paraphernalia on the site at the time of my visit, there would be nothing to stop such items being located on there.

The proposed dwelling would be a single storey self-build dwelling that would be recessed into the contours of the site and would utilise the existing access to the land. It would be roughly H-shaped, with two wings joined by a glazed link entrance. A sedum green roof is proposed on the two wings of the dwelling and locally quarried stone would be used on the external walls.

The site is located on the eastern edge of Nidderdale National Landscape (NNL). In addition to the statutory duty at section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the Framework provides that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. Policy GS6 of the LP has similar objectives with regard to the National Landscape and indicates that particular regard will be had to certain considerations. In addition, LP Policy NE4 requires that developments protect, enhance or restore landscape character including by being informed by, and sensitive to, the distinctive landscape character areas identified in the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment.

This National Landscape has a diverse and contrasting landscape ranging from the open and exposed moorlands in the west to the softer, more pastoral dale and valley landscape in the east with its scattered farmsteads, regular grid pattern of fields marked by dry stone walls, historic parks and gardens, woodlands, and stone villages along historic transport routes. Its special qualities have been strongly influenced by farming and industry - with the remains of nineteenth century mines and quarries and the dams and reservoirs created by the water industry being prominent features in the landscape.

The site is located in Lower Nidderdale Valley (north west of Harrogate) Landscape Character Area (LCA). Key characteristics of this area as identified in the Harrogate District Landscape Character Assessment (February 2004) include: a mixture of arable farming on the valley floor and intensive grazing on the valley sides; field sizes increasing up the valley side; good woodland and tree cover; generally compact villages, scattered hamlets and farmsteads linked by an intricate network of minor roads: and the use of traditional building materials.

The area in which the appeal site is located is typical of the eastern area of the National Landscape. The appeal site forms part of a domestic garden, whose character and nature are seen as such in what views are possible of the site from the public realm. Whilst the stone walls surrounding the site are typical of the boundary treatments in the area, and its undeveloped nature adds some value by being open, the site contributes little to the wider identified attributes of NNL or the LCA in which it is located.

Dwellings in the area are generally traditional in design and utilise local building materials, although some modern materials have been used in extensions and alterations, including on the host property. Whilst the proposed dwelling would have a modern contemporary design, it would use a mixture of traditional and modern materials and would be sympathetic to the local context and the character and appearance of the hamlet.

There would be large areas of glazing but the use of a condition to ensure the use of specialist glazing would prevent excessive light spill to help protect ‘dark skies’. This aspect of the landscape and scenic beauty of NNL would therefore not be prejudiced by the proposal, which is located in a transitional area, rather than the darkest zone for dark skies.

The proposal would result in the extension of the built form and associated domestic paraphernalia onto what is open garden land but would not encroach into the agricultural fields that form the surrounding countryside and the rural setting of Swincliffe. This would impact on the current open nature of the site but would not, to any significant degree, alter the domestic nature of the site, which as highlighted above could be used to accommodate a variety of domestic structures and paraphernalia.

The hamlet is located on the brow of the hill and consequently is visible in both medium and long range views from nearby roads and public footpaths. Whilst the host property, and particularly its upper floor, is often seen in such views, the appeal site, being at a lower level is much less so. Recessed into the contours of the hillside, being single storey and having a green roof, means that the proposed dwelling would not be a prominent feature and would largely be screened from view by the existing boundary walls and hedges. Where it would be seen it would be seen in the context of the much more prominent host property and other houses in the hamlet, and not as a standalone or isolated property protruding into the countryside. In long range views, in particular, it would be a very minor and barely discernible component of the overall scene.

The Landscape Character Assessment highlights that there is pressure for built development in this area, and that its ability to accept change without harm to its character is limited, especially where development would be visible or result in the loss of woodlands or trees. It also states that the landscape contains many scattered buildings and has a limited capacity to accept additional built development without detriment to landscape character through coalescence.

For reasons already set out, visibility of the proposed dwelling would be limited. The small number of trees that would be removed do not make a meaningful contribution to the character of the landscape and could be more than mitigated for through the landscaping of the site which can be controlled by a condition. Located in the garden of an existing property within a hamlet, the proposal would not be a scattered development that could lead to coalescence with other scattered buildings. Nor would it result in coalescence between Swincliffe and Hampsthwaite as the existing open fields between these two settlements would not be affected. As such, the landscape pattern and rural character between the two settlements would be retained and unharmed.

Overall, the implications for the wider landscape would be limited. The proposal would not be intrusive and would not spoil the landscape or the visual qualities of NNL. Consequently, I consider the effect on the landscape and scenic beauty of NNL would be acceptable and no harm would be caused to other important aspects of this designated area. As a result, there would be no conflict with the relevant policies outlined above.

Furthermore, in the light of these conclusions, I consider the proposal would accord with criteria C and D of Policy GS3. Therefore, given my findings about criteria A and B and the relatively sustainable location of the site, I consider the proposal would accord with the requirements in Policy GS3 for scenarios when the Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply.

As Policy GS2 indicates that developments in the wider countryside are appropriate if permitted by other policies in the plan, the proposal’s accordance with the requirements of Policy GS3 also means it would not be contrary to the spatial strategy set out in Policy GS2.

Consequently, I consider the site would be a suitable site for new housing having regard to the spatial strategy and the accessibility of the site to sustainable modes of transport. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with Policies GS2 and GS3 of the LP outlined above.

The proposal would be for a self-build property and is accompanied by a signed [name] (UU) that would ensure that the dwelling is built and occupied in accordance with the legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding as defined in the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016).

It is not disputed that the Council have a shortfall in self-build plots compared to the demand for them. Whilst there is a requirement in the LP for self-build plots to be provided on housing sites of more than 500 dwellings, small windfall developments will still play an important role in seeking to meet the demand for these plots. I agree with the Council’s assessment that in this regard significant weight should be given to the proposal.

I note the Council’s comment that the appellant is also named on another [name] for a self -build property in the area that is also currently subject to a planning appeal. However, the appellant has clarified that this appeal scheme is intended to be their future home and that they have had the primary input to the design of this dwelling. They state that the appellant in the other appeal is the firm for which the appellant works and the scheme is seeking outline permission for a plot that would be sold on to another who would have the primary input into the design of the dwelling. I am therefore satisfied that this proposal, secured by the [name], will meet the requirements as a self-build dwelling.

Overall, I am satisfied that the undertakings secured through the UU are reasonable and necessary to make the development acceptable. They are directly related to the development and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to it. The UU therefore complies with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and the Framework.

The appeal site is within 100m of a pond with a confirmed presence of [name] which are a protected species. A countersigned Impact Assessment and Conservation Payment Certificate has been provided with the appeal documentation. This confirms that the site is suitable for District Level Licensing, meets the favourable conservation status and secures adequate compensation for any impact. In the light of this I am satisfied that any harm to the protected species would be adequately mitigated and there would be no significant harm to the long term conservation status of the species.

I have found that the appeal site would be a suitable site for new housing and the effect of the proposal on the landscape and scenic beauty of NNL would be acceptable. The proposal would therefore accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations to outweigh this finding. Thus, for the reasons set out above, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.

Should it be considered that the proposal did not accord with the spatial strategy of the LP, as the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply it would be necessary to determine the appeal on the basis of the provision of paragraph 11d) of the Framework. Whilst located in NNL, I have found that the effect of the proposal on the landscape and scenic beauty of NNL would be acceptable and so policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance do not provide a strong reason for refusing the development.

I have concluded that the proposal, despite being outside the development limits of a settlement and so in the wider countryside, would be in a location with good access to services and facilities by a range of sustainable modes of transport and so future occupiers would not be reliant solely on the private car. Nor would it harm the character of the settlement, the surrounding countryside or the National Landscape. As a result, I give limited weight to the harm that would be caused by being contrary to the spatial strategy of the LP.

As set out above I consider significant weight should be given to the proposal being a self-build dwelling. In addition, both the construction phase and spend by future occupiers would benefit the local economy and help support the viability of local services and the proposal would contribute to the housing land supply. As the proposal is for a single dwelling, I give limited weight to these benefits.

Consequently, I consider the adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. Therefore, the proposal would benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as defined in the Framework, and material considerations indicate that planning permission should be granted for development that is not in accordance with the development plan. So even in this scenario, I consider that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in the light of paragraph 56 of the Framework. In the interests of clarity, preciseness and enforceability I have altered the wording of a number of them.

In addition to the standard implementation condition (condition 1), to provide certainty it is necessary to define the plans with which the scheme should accord (condition 2). Conditions 3 and 6 are required in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and to accord with [name] HP3 and NE7 respectively. In order to protect the dark skies of NNL in line with Policy GS6 of the LP, conditions 4, 5 and 16 are necessary.

Conditions 7 and 8 (which combine the requirements of several suggested conditions) are necessary to safeguard the development from contaminated land and prevent pollution and to comply with [name] HP4 and NE9. To ensure the site is satisfactorily drained and to comply with [name] CC1 and NE2, conditions 9 and 10 are necessary.

For highway safety reasons and to comply with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Framework and LP Policy TI3 conditions 11-14 are required. In the interests of sustainability and to comply with LP Policy CC4, condition 15 is imposed.

Conditions 6-8 all need to be pre-commencement conditions as they either relate to works that need to take place before construction works start or need to take place as part of the construction of the development. In accordance with Section 100ZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the appellant has provided written agreement to the pre-commencement conditions.

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 drawing nos: Site Location Plan 23110-MSV-XX-GF-DR-A-0001 P01; Site Plan Proposed 23110-MSV-XX-GF-DR-A-0003 P01; [name] – Proposed 23110-MSV-XX-F1-DR-A-0125 P01; RF-Roof-Proposed 23110- MSV-XX-F1-DR-A-0126 P01; Site Sections – Proposed 23110-[name]-0225 P01; Site Sections – Proposed 23110-MSV-XX-ZZ-DR-A-0226 P01; Elevations – Proposed 23110-MSV-XX-ZZ-DR-A- 0275 P01; Site Drainage Strategy 23110-MSV-XX-GF-DR-A- 0005 P02; [name]-300339-SK001 P01.

No development above ground level shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling hereby permitted have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples.

Before any glazing is installed in the dwelling hereby permitted, details to secure the use of visible light transmission glazing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed.

No development shall take place until a scheme of both hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of the hard surfacing materials, earthworks showing existing and proposed finish levels or contours, quantity, size, species, position and densities of proposed trees and plants and an implementation programme. The landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved implementation programme; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 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.

No development shall take place until actual or potential contamination has been investigated, and a Preliminary Risk Assessment (Phase 1 [name]) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

Where further intrusive investigation is recommended in the approved Preliminary Risk Assessment, no development shall take place until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with [name] 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency‚ [name] (LCRM) (or equivalent [name] and [name] if replaced), has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. If any contamination is found, no development shall take place until: i) a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority; ii) the site has been remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale; and iii) a verification report has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: iv) additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority; and v) a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site. The separate systems should extend to the points of discharge that shall have been previously agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

No piped discharge of surface water from the application site shall take place until works to provide a satisfactory outfall, (other than the existing local public sewerage), for surface water have been completed in accordance with details previously submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the access to the site shown on drawing no 23110-MSV-XX-GF-DR-A-0003 P01 has been set out and constructed in accordance with the ‘Specification for Housing and [name] and [address] Works” published by the Local Highway Authority and the following requirements: The crossing of the highway verge and/or footway must be constructed in accordance with the approved details and/or [name] number E50 and the following requirements. • Provision to prevent surface water from the site/plot discharging onto the existing or proposed highway must be constructed in accordance with the approved details shown and maintained thereafter to prevent such discharges. • The final surfacing of any private access within 2 metres of the public highway must not contain any loose material that is capable of being drawn on to the existing or proposed public highway. All works must accord with the approved details. The access shall be retained thereafter.

The development hereby permitted must not be occupied until the visibility splays as shown on [name]. AMA-300339 SK001-P01 are provided. Once created, the visibility splays must be maintained clear of any obstruction exceeding 0.6m.

The dwelling hereby permitted must not be occupied until the parking, manoeuvring and turning areas have been constructed in accordance with details that shall have previously been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Once created these areas must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for their intended purpose at all times.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the car port shall not be converted into domestic accommodation.

The development shall be constructed in accordance with the [name] and [name] measures and details set out in the Design & [name] P02 (page 25) (by [name]).

Any floodlighting, security lighting or other external means of illumination of the site shall only be provided, installed or operated in accordance with a scheme that has previously been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.