Appeal 6003185

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to demolish an existing two storey linking structure, to form 2 dwellings consisting of a four bedroom dwelling and a separate 3 bed dwelling including the conversion of an existing garage to habitable accommodation including removal of garage door and infilling with window and brick work and a two storey side extension and to demolish existing single garage and replace with 1 no single new garage on same footprint at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00255/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I have used the description of development stated on the decision notice in my formal decision. That description much better describes what is proposed and includes reference to all elements of it, in particular the two storey side extension and the new single garage.

A unilateral undertaking (UU) has been provided with the appeal which would secure the proposed dwelling as a self-build dwelling. The Council seeks to resist the classification of the dwelling as such, on the basis that this was not what was applied for at planning application stage. There is certainly an inconsistency in the submissions made at that point, albeit this appears to have been influenced to some degree by the fact that the development plan self-build policy requires affordable self-build dwellings, and that what is proposed would not deliver this specific requirement.

It would however have been reasonably clear at the planning application stage that there was at least an intention that the proposed dwelling would be brought forward as a self-build dwelling. Indeed, the Ecology consultation response specifically picks up on this, and the [name] too acknowledges the possibility of self-build, stating at one point that the application seeks permission for the additional dwelling to be classified as a self/custom build plot but not as an affordable dwelling. Furthermore, a self-build dwelling is indistinguishable from a market dwelling in terms of its physical impacts. As such, there is no potential that any interested parties could be prejudiced as a result of the submission of the UU, and in any instance, they have had further opportunity to make representations at appeal stage.

The Council has also had the opportunity to make its representations on the implications of the UU. For me to refuse to consider the policy-based reason for refusal against the potential delivery as a self-build dwelling would be unreasonable in the circumstances I have set out above. However, I acknowledge that the Council are clear in their position that the self-build consideration should be afforded no weight

My acceptance of the UU means that the substance of reason for refusal two would fall away, as self-build dwellings are exempt from statutory biodiversity net gain. Having had regard to the relevant development plan policy and the Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document 2015 (SPD), the provision of bat and bird boxes would be a proportionate net gain for a development of the nature and impact of what is proposed, which would take place in an existing mature garden. I am satisfied that there would be a compliance with Policy 4 of the [site address] [name] 2016 (NNJCS) in that respect.

The main issue is whether the proposal would be suitably located having regard to relevant development plan policies concerning the location of new development in the open countryside.

Policies 11 and 13 of the NNJCS and [name] 1 and H 6 of the Plan for the Borough of Wellingborough 2019 (PBW) collectively set out the strategic approach to new development. The proposal does not fall within any of the exceptions that relate to new development in the open countryside. Although Policy 11 seeks to support a prosperous rural economy and to meet a locally arising need, the former does not support the provision of a new dwelling, and I am not persuaded that any surplus size of the existing house in relation to current needs equates to a housing need.

The proposal does not find support from Policy SS 1 of the PBW because it would not represent the re-use or conversion of a suitable building in the Restraint Village of Hardwick. What is proposed would clearly be a standalone new dwelling. Whilst there would be a reduction in the size of the existing dwelling as a result, that building is clearly currently in use and the proposal could not reasonably be considered to be a conversion of it. The relative floorspaces pre and post development are not relevant to this assessment. The proposal does not accord with Policy H 6 of the PBW relating to self-build dwellings, because it is not proposed to be an affordable self-build dwelling.

In conclusion, the proposal would fail to accord with Policies 11 and 13 of the NNJCS and [name] 1 and H 6 of the PBW, where they set out the strategic approach to new development. [name]

[name] have found that the proposal would not accord with the development plan policy relating to self-build dwellings, this policy is more restrictive in terms of what is required when a self-build proposal is put forward than the legislative requirements. The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 requires local planning authorities to establish and publicise a local register of custom builders who wish to acquire suitable land to build their own home. The Housing and Planning Act of 2016 added a duty to grant planning permission subject to exemptions at S2A. This provides that authorities must give suitable development permission in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding in the authority's area arising in each base period. Those dwellings are not required to be affordable dwellings or to have a limit on their floorspaces

My attention is drawn to a built-up demand for self-build plots across the area that is not being met. Evidence of this is provided in the form of the delegated report for a previous application on the appeal site1 and an appeal decision2 on a different site within [site address] , which set out the extent of the shortfall in self-build supply that it was considered existed at those points in time. Both suggest a substantial and persistent under-supply. The Council accepts that the level of self-build plots should be higher and that there has been no change in the position since the time of the previous application. The absence of the individuals associated with the appeal proposal from the self-build register does not materially diminish the benefits of providing a self-build dwelling in the face of a considerable undersupply, and I afford this consideration significant weight in favour of the development. Paragraph 11d)

The tilted balance set out in paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged because the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. It has not been suggested that the provisions of paragraph 11d)i) are applicable in this instance. In terms of paragraph 11d)ii), this states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would be well-designed in relation to the existing dwelling which it would sit immediately adjacent to. In that respect it would also have a limited visual impact, as the proposal would result in the demolition of some of the existing dwelling and a part of that dwelling would be incorporated into the new one. It would make a contribution to boosting the supply of new homes in the face of the current housing land supply position, albeit this is a modest undersupply, and more specifically contribute to meeting the needs of those who wish to commission or build their homes, against a significant undersupply in that regard. 1 NW/24/00727/FUL 2 APP/M2840/W/24/3342039

Furthermore, there would be a notable reduction of the existing dwelling to the extent that it would provide a more functionally sized dwelling and plot for a wider proportion of the population. There would be the added benefit of a new dwelling being provided and only a minimal increase in floorspace would result. It is reasonable therefore to consider that, in this specific instance, this would be an example of the development of under-utilised land and buildings, in an area where land supply is currently constrained. These are considerations which collectively carry considerable weight in favour of the proposal.

Balanced against this is the poor sustainability credentials in terms of its location in a settlement that is defined as a Restraint Village in the development plan. However, the harm in locational terms would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits I have identified. The presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore applies.

The appeal site is located within the Hardwick Conservation Area (CA). The Hardwick Conservation Area Character Appraisal refers to the architectural and historic qualities of the settlement and to its essentially linear settlement with a central medieval village green, along with the spread of dwellings with generous gardens and relatively low densities. The proposed new dwelling would sit next to the existing dwelling, which is a modern dwelling of no particular architectural or historical merit. It would not compromise the linear form of the settlement. Although inevitably an area of garden would be lost and density would be increased, this would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the CA. I concur with the Council’s conclusion that there would be no harm to the significance of the CA.

In their appeal statement, the Council suggests that the sub-division of the plot would be out of character and harmful to the attractiveness of the edge of the village. That is not a concern that appears to have been raised at any point previously. For the avoidance of doubt and for much the same reasons that I have found no harm to the CA, I do not have any concern as to the impact that the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the area.

The Council states that there are other properties available for sale near to the appeal site, however they have provided no details of these. In any event, even if there are, this would not affect my assessment of the planning policy and other considerations set out in this case.

A signed and dated UU which would secure the proposed new dwelling as a self-build dwelling has been provided. This would also mean the proposal would be exempt from the statutory BNG requirement.

The proposal would fail to accord with the strategic policies of the development plan, and thus with the development plan taken as a whole. However, I afford significant weight to the fact that a self-build dwelling would be provided in the context that I have set out, and I have found that the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. Those are material considerations which collectively indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

Conditions setting out the time period to commence development and the approved plans are required to provide certainty. Details of external facing materials are required for approval to ensure that the proposed works are acceptable visually. The installation of a bird and bat box should be conditioned to maintain and enhance local biodiversity and ecology in accordance with development plan policy and the SPD.

In the interests of highway safety conditions are imposed relating to the widening of the existing access, the surfacing of the drive and the drainage of the drive. A scheme of tree protection and an [name] are required as there are protected trees nearby on the appeal site and a condition requiring notification of any unexpected contamination is needed to address such an occurrence. Conditions relating to accessibility standards and water use are needed to comply with development plan policies.

It would not be reasonable to remove permitted development rights from the existing dwelling, if indeed it benefits from such rights. There has been no substantive reasoning provided as to why it would be reasonable to remove them from the new dwelling, either. The reason given for the suggested condition is to protect residential amenity, but there is to my mind no obvious reason why this would be necessary. Details of bin storage and collection points are not needed, as there would be adequate space to store containers at each dwelling and the collection arrangements would be expected to be the same as at the existing dwelling.

Given the established nature of the appeal site in landscaping terms and that this would mostly be unaffected by the appeal proposal, I do not consider it necessary to impose a condition in that regard or to seek additional landscaping. Because of the relatively small scale of what is proposed, I do not consider that the imposition of a construction environmental management plan condition would be proportionate. The provision of electric vehicle charging points is a matter that is addressed under building regulations.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.

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: CHU-478-SUR-001, CHU-478-PA-101-D, CHU-478-PA-201-B and CHU-478-PA-001.

No development above slab level shall take place until samples of the external materials to be used in the construction of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the first occupation of the additional dwelling hereby approved, one bird and one bat box shall be installed at suitable locations on that dwelling and retained in place thereafter.

The additional dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the existing vehicular crossing is widened and modified as a shared private drive having a width of no less than 4.5 metres for a distance of 10 metres from the rear edge of the highway boundary, and all highway surfaces affected by the proposals reinstated in accordance with the specification of the Local Highway Authority and subject to a suitable licence/agreement under the Highways Act 1980.

The driveway shall be paved with a hard-bound surface for a minimum of 5 metres to the rear of the highway boundary prior to the first occupation of the additional dwelling.

Prior to the first occupation of the additional dwelling a positive means of drainage must be installed to the driveway to ensure that surface water from the driveway does not discharge onto the highway.

Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the protection of the retained trees and a detailed [name] shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall ensure the trees are protected in accordance with BS5837:2012/BS42020. The approved scheme and [name] shall be implemented/installed prior to any works commencing on site and no trees shall be damaged or destroyed, uprooted, felled, lopped or topped during the construction period of the development without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

In the event that any unexpected contamination is found at any time when carrying out the development hereby approved, it must be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development works at the site shall cease and an investigation and risk assessment undertaken to assess the nature and extent of the unexpected contamination. A written report of the findings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, together with a scheme to remediate, if required, prior to further development on site taking place. Only once written approval from the Local Planning Authority has been given shall development works recommence.

The additional dwelling hereby approved shall be built to meet the requirements of the national [name] in category 2 (accessible and adaptable dwellings) in accordance with the schedule of the [name] of the Building Regulations (2015).

The additional dwelling hereby approved shall incorporate measures to limit water use to no more than 105 litres per person per day within the home and external water use of no more than 5 litres per day in accordance with the optional standard 36 (2b) of [name] of the Building Regulations (2015). -------------------------------------------End of Conditions--------------------------------------------