Appeal 6003142

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved, except for access. I have determined the appeal on that basis and therefore any details submitted, other than regarding the access arrangements, are taken into account for illustrative purposes only.

The Council has confirmed that the new West Suffolk Local Plan 2024-2041 (LP) was adopted in July 2025, after the Council made its decision on the planning application. The Council has set out that policies SP1, SP7, SP9, SP12, SP13, SP20, SP21, SP24, LP1, LP7, LP12 and LP41 of the LP are relevant and replace all of the policies referred to in the reasons for refusal, namely DM2, DM5, DM13, DM14 and DM22 of the Joint Development Management Policies Document (2015) and policies CS2, CS3, CS4, CS7 and CS13 of the [name] (2010). The Council also provided clarification on its current housing land supply position since the adoption of the LP. Following clarification, the appellant was consulted in respect of the updated policy context and housing land supply position and consequently, my determination of the appeal is against the policies set out in the new LP.

The appellant provided additional information with the appeal that did not form part of the planning application submission, including an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA), Phase 1 – [name] and Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) and Highway and [name] (HTR). The contents of the AIA and PRA do not amend the appeal proposal in any way and as such I do not find that any party would be prejudiced by my consideration of these documents as part of the appeal. However, the HTR, provides amended drawings which include alterations to land outside of the site boundary. Given these would represent more than a minor change to the scheme in terms of the access arrangement I cannot consider the findings of the HTR in my consideration of the appeal.

The main issues are: • whether the site is in a suitable location for residential development having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan and the accessibility of services and facilities; • whether safe and suitable access would be provided; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, trees and biodiversity; and • the contamination risks on site.

There is no dispute between the parties that the site is outside of any settlement boundary defined in the LP. Policy SP12 of the LP sets out that land outside of settlement boundaries, as defined on the policies map, is countryside for the purposes of the spatial strategy. LP Policy SP21 states that new dwellings will be permitted in the countryside where they meet certain criteria, including, a) the development is within a small cohesive group of seven or more dwellings, b) the scale of development consists of the infilling of a small undeveloped plot with one or two dwellings, and c) the location has access to sustainable transport links.

LP Policy SP20 refers to the provision of custom and self-build plots and identifies that such proposals will be supported where they comply with other policies in the

I accept that the site is not isolated, given the presence of other existing development in the surrounding area including the adjacent mobile home residential park, identified as Shepherd’s Grove Park. However, whilst the site is adjacent to a cohesive group of more than seven dwellings, I do not consider that the site is within that group of existing dwellings.

Also, infilling suggests that a development would sit between existing development. Whilst there would be existing development directly to the west, there would be no development directly adjacent to the east, along the road frontage, given there would be a break in built form until the junction with [address], beyond which there is commercial development. Whilst the appellant asserts that the scale of the proposal would be proportionate to existing development in the area, given the size of the plot and the number of dwellings applied for, the proposal would go significantly beyond the scale of development permitted under criterion b) of the policy. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to both criteria a) and b) of LP Policy SP21.

The adjacent Shepherd’s Grove Park has its own settlement boundary defined in the LP. However, both that area defined by a settlement boundary and the site are somewhat removed from the built up area of the village of Stanton. In terms of access to services and facilities, I witnessed the [address] café, near to the site during my visit but I did not see, nor am I referred to any other services and facilities within such close proximity.

Stanton is defined as a [name] under Policy SP13 of the LP and does offer a number of services and facilities including a primary school and nursery, grocery store, post office, hot food take away, public house, church, village hall, recreation ground and other local businesses. The edge of Stanton village is approximately 1.3km from the site. There are also employment uses at the commercial areas in proximity of the site.

The appellant asserts that there is a pedestrian route through the adjacent Shepherd’s Grove Park, which would be traffic-free and overlooked. Nonetheless, none of the submitted drawings identify a link into the neighbouring site and I cannot be certain that this would be possible. Therefore, without certainty of this alternative option, the initial part of the pedestrian route from the site towards Stanton would involve walking along the road, or the grass verge, before reaching the pavements that run alongside [site address] and [address].

Much of the remaining pedestrian route would be along a pavement which appeared narrow in places, alongside unlit rural roads which are subject to the national speed limit. Given the conditions of the route, walking would not be an attractive option for many, particularly in the hours of darkness or in inclement weather. Cycling may be an option for some, given the distance to Stanton, although it may not be an option for many, given the lack of cycle infrastructure and the nature of the road conditions.

I witnessed the bus stop locations outside the most western access into Shepherd’s Grove Park which would be a short walk from the site. I am told that there is a timetabled bus service providing access into Stanton and [name], however, I am not provided with any evidence of the frequency of the bus services.

Consequently, whilst there may be other travel options, it is likely, given the rural nature of the roads and the distance, that future occupiers would be largely reliant on the private vehicle. Trips by vehicle to Stanton would be short, but journeys to the higher order settlements of [name] or Diss would be further. I recognise that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, nevertheless, this does not negate the requirement to offer a genuine choice of transport modes.

The appellant asserts that broadband speeds would be good and that mobile phone infrastructure nearby means that homeworking would be an option. I also accept that supermarket delivery services would be possible. Nevertheless, not all day to day needs can be met on site or through delivery services.

I therefore find that the proposal would not be a suitable location for residential development having regard to the spatial strategy set out in the development plan and the accessibility of services and facilities. The proposal would fail to comply with [name] LP1, LP41, SP1, SP12, SP13, SP20 and SP21. These policies seek, amongst other things, that the need to travel is minimised, that active travel is promoted, that land designated as countryside is protected from unsustainable development and that self-build and custom development is in accordance with other policies set out in the LP.

The Council initially referred to LP Policy SP24, however, this relates to economic development and essential utilities in the countryside and is therefore not directly relevant to the case before me.

The proposal includes the use of the existing access. To the front of the access is a lay-by area, which the appellant asserts is a widened area which is used informally for vehicle stopping and parking. I witnessed the lay-by area during my site visit and noted that there was one other vehicle parked in the lay-by area further east, away from the proposed access point. Whilst only a snapshot in time, I noted that [site address] was lightly trafficked during my site visit.

As stated above, I cannot accept the HTR at this stage of the process. As such, I am considering this matter based on the information submitted with the application.

Users of the proposed access would have to cross the lay-by in order to access [site address] . Given the access point would not be located at the very end of the lay-by arrangement, vehicles entering or exiting the proposed access could result in conflict with users of the lay-by. It is not clear what the achievable visibility is as this information has not been provided. This is particularly pertinent given the location of the access within the lay-by. As a result, I find that there is insufficient information submitted to demonstrate that the proposed access arrangement would not result in a harmful impact on highway safety, given the risk of conflict between users of the proposed access and the lay-by.

Whilst the Council raised concerns about the layout of the site in terms of whether a refuse vehicle could access and turn within the site, this matter could be dealt with under layout at the reserved matters stage. Nevertheless, I find that there is insufficient information to demonstrate that a safe and suitable vehicular access can be achieved at the site. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy SP21 of the LP which seeks, amongst other things, that proposals do not have an adverse impact on highway safety.

The appeal site comprises an area of woodland, although there is an existing track that runs through the site and a small single storey building alongside small pockets of the site that are cleared and free from trees. The current woodland on the site is identified by the Council as a priority habitat as deciduous woodland. Along the frontage of the site is a lay-by which runs alongside [site address] . I am told that none of the trees on the site are subject to tree preservation orders.

Other than at the access points into Shepherd’s Grove Park, and the parking area to the western end, the adjacent park homes are generally well screened by mature trees and hedgerows that run along the road frontage. To the east of the site is a further treed area with existing commercial development beyond. Directly opposite the site is agricultural land, alongside a track that leads to [address], which also appeared to be a site in commercial use, set back from the road. In views from the road, the verdant characteristics of the site contribute positively to the more semi-rural character and appearance of the area.

The submitted AIA identifies that the woodland does have a role in the local landscape and is therefore category B when considered in its entirety, meaning it confers landscape value. Having visited the site, I also consider that the woodland plays a positive role in the local landscape in terms of its contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

Whilst the layout of built form is a reserved matter, an illustrative plan is provided which shows dwellings that have side and rear boundaries onto [site address] . [name] accept that the proposal may result in a relatively low density development, I find it likely that the provision of seven dwellings on the site would result in the erosion of the woodland character, with the provision of built form, residential activity and domestic paraphernalia dominating the spatial and visual characteristics of the site. I do note that it would be alongside the existing Shepherd’s Park Grove development and therefore residential development would not necessarily be an unexpected feature in the locality. Nevertheless, the proposal would significantly alter the characteristics of the site and the development of it in this semi-rural location would result in harm.

The AIA concludes, based on the illustrative plans, that four individual category C trees and four trees from group G2 which are also category C would be removed as part of the development. Two of those trees would be close to the frontage on [site address] , with the remainder being set back further within the site. This amount of tree removal in the woodland context of the site does appear fairly limited and I note that trees of a lesser quality and amenity value are identified for removal rather than the trees identified as category B.

Nevertheless, the AIA states that the tree positions are approximate and must be accurately located before final designs are created. This does lead to doubt as to how accurately the impact on trees can be understood at this stage. Also, the AIA identifies that group G1 which is mixed woodland covers the entirety of the site, other than the western boundary and that the constraints of G1 have been omitted from the Tree Constraints Plan and Tree Protection Plan in the interests of clarity. It is therefore not clear what vegetation would be removed from group G1. As a result of this uncertainty, it is not clear what replacement tree planting would be necessary to compensate for the loss of existing trees, what mitigation would be necessary, or where this would be located.

A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA), [name] (BASR) and [name] (RSR) were provided with the planning application. The PEA refers to the site as being mainly lowland mixed deciduous woodland (priority habitat) with areas of other neutral grassland and hardstanding and identifies the site as being of high ecological value. It states that the proposal is expected to result in a loss of nesting habitat for woodland nesting birds, the loss of foraging features for bats and the low scale loss of terrestrial habitats for reptiles. Mitigation is suggested as retaining the woodland where possible and the replanting of woodland to compensate for the loss of the priority habitat. The BASR identifies low to high level of bat foraging and commuting activity across the site and suggested mitigation and enhancement measures. The RSR concluded a likely absence of reptiles on site and set out precautionary measures to follow.

However, whilst these conclusions may still be applicable, without clear information on the level of habitat removal in terms of the level of tree loss, I cannot be certain that these findings are accurate. I also find that it has not been demonstrated that the tree loss could be adequately mitigated or compensated for or that the proposal would not lead to a harmful impact on biodiversity as a result. Therefore, without more detailed arboricultural information, I cannot be satisfied that the proposal would not lead to an unacceptable level of tree loss which would harmfully diminish the woodland character of the site and the priority habitat.

Whilst the appellant suggests that an updated tree survey would be undertaken at the reserved matters stage, I find it necessary to understand the effects on the trees at this stage, given the woodland nature of the site and the positive contribution that it currently makes to the character and appearance of the area and the role it plays as a priority habitat supporting biodiversity.

I therefore find that the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, and it has not been evidenced that it would not result in the unacceptable loss of existing woodland which is also a priority habitat which supports biodiversity. It would be contrary to Policies LP12, SP7 and SP9 of the LP. These policies seek, amongst other things, that development proposals are sympathetic to landscape character, that woodland should be retained unless it is demonstrated that removal cannot be avoided, that appropriate mitigation or compensation can be achieved and that development should conserve and enhance biodiversity.

Policy LP7 of the LP states that proposals will be permitted where the development is unlikely to result in significant impacts on land which is known to be or potentially affected by contamination or where the land may have a particular sensitive end use. The policy goes on to state that the assessment of risk should take a tiered approach to include as a minimum a tier one land contamination preliminary risk assessment and where necessary further technical reports.

The submitted PRA concludes that there is medium/low risk of contamination due to the made ground on the site. It recommends that a preliminary intrusive ground investigation is undertaken to determine the extent of any potential contamination within the soil strata and if necessary groundwater encountered. Given the level of risk found through the PRA, and without compelling evidence to the contrary, I find that sufficient information, following the tiered approach, has been provided in this respect. Planning conditions could be used to require the preliminary intrusive ground investigations, along with any further requirements such as securing remediation measures where necessary.

I therefore find that the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy LP7 of the LP in this respect, the relevant aims of which are set out above.

The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 requires local authorities to give enough suitable development permissions to meet the identified demand for such development. The appeal proposal is described as providing seven self-build or custom build dwellings. The appellant asserts that the Council is not meeting its duties in this regard and the Council confirms that there is currently a shortfall in the supply of such plots. Nevertheless, whilst the Council has provided some limited figures, I do not have sufficient information from either party to determine what the current position is. I therefore do not have the full details on how significant the shortfall currently is, which tempers my consideration of this matter.

A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) has been provided in respect of securing the scheme as a self-build and custom build development. I have not been provided with any comments from the Council on the UU, nevertheless, I do have some concerns about the wording. For instance, whilst the definition of a ‘self build dwelling’ refers to a house or a group of houses, the covenants do not reflect the fact the proposal is for seven dwellings, and appears to read as being for a single dwelling. The covenant section also refers to ‘self build property’ in some of the paragraphs, which is not defined. It is also not clear how the disposal of the site would take into account the self-build nature of the development, with the covenants only referring to the fact that the landowner must notify the Council of the name and address of the person to whom it would be transferred to.

I note the assertions from the appellant that Policy SP20 of the LP only supports the delivery of self-build and custom plots where they would already be acceptable in terms of the spatial strategy and location. Nevertheless, the policy does encourage the provision of such plots on larger schemes also and given the limited time since adoption and the lack of information before me on the current delivery and shortfall data I cannot make a judgement as to whether the policy is or is not constraining the delivery of self-build and custom dwellings. I note the appellant refers to an appeal decision at [name] of [address] in this respect, nevertheless, that site was located in a different Council area with a different policy context, and I do not have the evidence that was before that Inspector nor the details of the site or its surroundings before me.

Nevertheless, I recognise the support for the provision of self-build and custom build homes set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and I note that the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer identifies that there is demand for self-build plots in Stanton. I find that the provision of self-build and custom plots would be a significant benefit, if appropriately secured as such.

I have been referred to several decisions where appeals have been allowed for self-build or custom dwellings outside of settlement boundaries. In the cases of Land at The Loke and [name], the Inspectors found that future occupants would have suitable access to services and facilities by sustainable modes of travel. This is different to my findings in this case. In the Acreswood, [address], Land at [address] and Land north of [name] decisions, the Inspectors found that the provision of self-build homes where there was an insufficient housing land supply and a shortfall in self-build and custom build permissions would outweigh the adverse impacts of the sites being in unsuitable locations, however, in those cases no other harms were identified that had to be weighed against the benefits, which is different to the case before me now.

I have not been provided with a full copy of the Land north of [name] case or the Land between the [name] and [address], nevertheless, from the extracts provided, I agree that a housing land supply in excess of five years does not act as a ceiling to housing development and that where a Council cannot demonstrate a sufficient supply of self-build and custom plots, significant weight can be attributed to that matter as a benefit.

The Council has provided an assessment of the supply of housing in [name] dated December 2025, which identifies the Council can currently demonstrate a 6 year housing land supply. The appellant has not provided any substantive evidence to the contrary. I note that the Council has confirmed that there is currently a shortfall in the delivery of plots for self-build and custom dwellings. However, the LP does contain a specific policy on self-build and custom dwelling provision, Policy SP20. Consequently, I do not find that there is no relevant development plan policy relating to this matter nor do I find that the policy is out of date, given its relatively recent adoption, within the last year. Therefore, I do not find that paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged.

In terms of harms, I have found that the proposal would result in conflict with the spatial strategy which would undermine the plan led approach supported by the Framework. I also find that future occupants of the site would be largely reliant on the private vehicle to access services and facilities. I find that there is insufficient information to demonstrate that a safe and suitable vehicular access can be achieved. I have also found that harm would result to the character and appearance of the area and that it has not been demonstrated that there would not be unacceptable harm to trees and biodiversity. In combination, I find that these matters attract substantial weight against the proposal.

I have found that contamination matters could be dealt with by planning condition. However, this would form a neutral consideration. Policy compliance or a lack of harm in respect of other matters would also weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

The proposal would contribute to the provision of new homes on a small site where dwellings could be built out relatively quickly. It would result in economic benefits through the construction phase and after with future occupants supporting local services and facilities. Future occupants may also contribute to the vitality of the surrounding area, including the nearby settlement of Stanton. Environmental benefits may be secured through a landscaping scheme secured at the reserved matters stage. I also note the support from the interested party on these matters. I attach moderate weight to these benefits, given the scale of the scheme.

Even if I were to give the UU full weight and find that the proposal would result in the provision of seven self-build and custom plots where there is an identified shortfall, and I attached significant weight to this benefit, the cumulative benefits overall would not outweigh the harms I have set out above.

I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

The Council identify that the site is within the zone of influence of European sites, including the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC), where it is expected, in combination with other developments, that the proposal would result in increased recreational pressure. However, Regulation 63(1) of The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended) indicates that the requirement for an appropriate assessment is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent. As the appeal is being dismissed on other grounds it is not necessary for me to consider this matter further.