Appeal 6003279

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘[name]) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

There is a separate appeal2 for permission in principle on a neighbouring site which was submitted by the same appellant. I have determined both appeals as separate proposals, albeit there are similarities between them.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development.

The appeal site is located on the edge of Leire. Policy SS1 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011 to 2031, April 2019 (HLP) outlines the spatial strategy for the District. 1 PPG, Permission in Principle, Paragraph: 012, [name]: 58-012-20180615 2 Appeal Ref. 6003723 Leire is not an identified settlement. As such, the appeal site is within the lowest category of the hierarchy entitled “Other villages, rural settlements and the countryside.” Development in these areas is strictly controlled.

HLP policies GD3 and GD4 concern development and housing in the countryside, respectively. They include criteria which specify the scenarios where proposed housing, would be acceptable in other villages, rural settlements, and the countryside. The proposal would not comply with the criteria specified in either of these policies. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to the spatial strategy set out within the HLP.

Policy H4 of the Leire Neighbourhood Plan, March 2022 (LNP) identifies the Limits to Development boundary for Leire. LNP Policy H2 supports windfall development within the boundary, including housing subject to certain criteria. The appeal site abuts, but is outside of, the Limits to Development boundary. Therefore, it would be contrary to the spatial strategy set out within LNP.

The Council is undertaking a review of the HLP and has published a [name] Assessment3. Within the Assessment the Council evaluate all of the settlements in the district in terms of what services and facilities are available within them. It then categorises the settlements into different tiers within a hierarchy. The Assessment identifies that Leire has a village hall, two public houses, and a place of worship, amongst other facilities. It also identifies that the village is served by an hourly bus service between Leicester, Lutterworth and Rugby. The Assessment categorises Leire as a Small Village. This is the second to last tier of the settlement hierarchy within the Assessment. Whilst this Assessment was published since the adoption of HLP and since the LNP was made, it does not supersede nor does it render the spatial strategy out of date. Rather, it is a material consideration in favour of the appeal.

Future occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be able to walk a short distance, along partially lit footpaths, to the centre of the village to access the identified facilities and services. I therefore consider that the proposed housing would be located where it would maintain the vitality of a rural community. I also consider that future occupier’s access to sustainable transport modes would be good, when acknowledging that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between rural and urban areas. With this in mind I consider that the proposal would be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) with particular regard to the accessibility of the appeal site.

The appellant has highlighted seven examples4 of housing developments that have been granted permission within or in proximity to Leire. Not all of these examples are supported by the pertinent supporting documents. However, those that are explain that those proposals were for the conversion of buildings in the countryside, which is supported by the spatial strategy. As such, those proposals are materially different to the appeal proposal. Moreover, without further information, I cannot conclude that the remaining examples set a precedence.

In addition, the appellant has also highlighted several approvals where development was granted on the edge of ‘small villages’. Most of these cases are materially different as they are located close to settlements identified as rural centres within 3 Settlement Hierarchy Assessment, Harborough District Council, January 2025 4 Application Refs. 19/01860; 21/01248; 23/01063; 24/01385; 25/00367; 25/00952/FUL; and 26/00478/[name]. There is one example5 which is broadly similar to the appeal proposal, in that it is within an unidentified settlement. However, the planning application for that proposal was supported by a rural housing needs survey which identified a need for the proposed housing. Accordingly, that proposal complied with HLP Policy GD4 and is therefore materially different to the appeal proposal.

As all of the provided examples of approvals are materially different to the appeal proposal, I only ascribe negligible weight to them in my assessment as to whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location.

On balance, I conclude that the site is not suitable for residential development having regard to its location. The proposal would be contrary to HLP policies SS1, H1, GD2, GD3, and GD4, and LNP policies H2 and H4 for the reasons set out above, amongst other matters.

There is a long access track within the appeal site which connects to a parcel of land to the rear of properties on [address]. This land is used as paddock land and accommodates stables and a menage. I observed that the development in proximity to the appeal site is of a lower density than the centre of the village. These factors combine to create a transitional but rural character for the appeal site.

The paddock land is characterised by ridge and furrow, a common landscape feature within the local countryside. It is also identified as a non-designated heritage asset. I will return to consider ridge and furrow as a heritage asset later in my decision. Nonetheless, within this section I will consider it as a landscape feature.

The detailed design of the proposal would be the subject of a [name] application. However, given the constraints of the site, it is likely that the proposed dwellings would be sited to the rear of properties on [address]. This would extend the village southward and would result in the loss of ridge and furrow. In this scenario, the proposed development would have a moderate density and would appear incongruous next to the existing lower density development.

Furthermore, the proposal would introduce further residential activity to the appeal site and external areas are likely to accommodate domestic paraphernalia such as washing lines. The proposal would have a harmful urbanising effect on the rural character of the appeal site and would disrupt the transition between the village and the countryside.

The proposal would not be in accordance with the Framework where it specifies that the creation of high quality places is fundamental to what the planning process should achieve, and decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character.

Taking the above into account, I conclude that the site is not suitable for residential development having regard to the proposed land use and the amount of development. The proposal would be contrary to HLP policies H5, GD5 and GD8 and LNP Policy H5 where these policies state new development will be required to enhance and reinforce local distinctiveness, amongst other matters. 5 Planning permission Ref. 24/01116/OUT

The ridge and furrow field character was created as a result of medieval farming practices. As ploughs were not reversible the soil was always turned rightwards. Over time this created ridge crests and furrows, which reached height differences of up to three metres. These field patterns were largely retained up until the mid-20th Century and the second world war. At that time, the Government encouraged more intensive arable farming. The use of mechanical ploughs, which could reverse, led to the destruction of large areas of ridge and furrow. This led to English Heritage seeking to protect it as a landscape feature and recommended identifying it as a non-designated heritage asset.

LNP identifies 17 individual fields of surviving ridge and furrow in Leire. It goes on to indicate that, due to its rarity in the plan area, all surviving ridge and furrow should be regarded as a non-designated heritage asset. This includes the appeal site.

LNP Policy ENV8 advises any loss or damage to ridge and furrow from a proposal is to be avoided, and the local benefits of such development must be balanced against the significance of the heritage asset. This is largely consistent with the Framework which advises that in weighing applications directly affecting non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

As above, it is likely that the proposed development would lead to the loss of most, if not all, of the ridge and furrow within the appeal site. However, it should be noted that the appeal site only forms part of the field, so the remaining ridge and furrow within the field but outside of the appeal site would be unaffected. Regardless, the loss of any ridge and furrow is clearly potentially harmful. A balanced approach is required considering the effect of the proposal on the ridge and furrow. I will return to this matter later within the planning balance.

The Council can only demonstrate 3.1 years’ supply of deliverable housing land. Based on the evidence before me this position has worsened in the last two years and there is no clear strategy as to how the shortfall in housing land will be addressed. I also note that there may be a future requirement for the Council to increase its supply of deliverable housing land to compensate for a shortfall in neighbouring authorities’ supply.

Small and medium sites, such as the appeal site, can make an important contribution toward meeting the housing requirement of an area. It is also the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes as outlined in the Framework. This is supported by the Planning Reform: [name] Statement6. In this instance the development of up to 9 dwellings, would help address the significant shortfall in deliverable housing land. A further benefit could arise from reducing the time limit for submitting a [name] application to 2 years, which could ensure that housing is delivered in a timelier manner. 6 Planning Reform: [name], 16 December 2025, Ministry of [name] and Local Government

Under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, the Council has a statutory duty to give development permission for the carrying out of self-build and custom housebuilding on enough serviced plots of land to meet demand. As of 30 October 2025, the Council had not given sufficient development permissions to meet demand. The Council’s own evidence indicates the shortfall is 125 plots. Consequently, the Council is failing to meet its statutory duty.

The description of development specifies that a minimum of 40% of the dwellings would be serviced plots for self-build and custom housebuilding. Any resultant [name] application would need to be in accordance with the permission in principle. Therefore, it would have to include serviced plots. Nevertheless, there is no mechanism before me to ensure that the serviced plots would be delivered. Although it is not possible to secure a planning obligation or impose conditions on a permission in principle, the appellant could have entered into a unilateral legal agreement. Without an appropriate mechanism, I cannot be certain when the serviced plots would be delivered, if at all. Consequently, the weight I ascribe to the benefits of providing serviced plots is reduced.

The appellant has highlighted an appeal7 where the Inspector gave substantial weight to the delivery of serviced plots in relation to a proposal for permission in principle, and there was no legal agreement. However, that proposal was wholly self-build/custom housebuilding. Therefore, it is materially different to the proposal before me which justifies a different approach.

The proposal would also secure a net gain in biodiversity. Based on the evidence before me, this would be policy compliant and would attract further weight in favour of the appeal.

Moreover, there would be economic benefits through the construction of the dwellings, particularly related to the development of self-build dwellings. The evidence before me indicates that self-build and custom housebuilding would have a greater effect on the local economy than from housing delivered by national housebuilders. There would also be economic benefits associated with an increased local population. Overall, I ascribe significant weight to the benefits of the appeal proposal.

As set out, the proposal is likely to result in the loss of part of a field of ridge and furrow. The remaining 16 fields of surviving ridge and furrow would be unaffected by the proposal. As such, the proposal would result in a modest reduction in an important landscape and heritage feature. I ascribe moderate weight to this harm.

In this instance, the partial loss of a non-designated heritage asset would be outweighed by the local benefits that would be provided by the appeal proposal. Accordingly, the proposal would be in accordance with HLP Policy HC1 and LNP Policy ENV8 where they indicate that the local benefits of a proposal should be weighed against the harm to the ridge and furrow, amongst other matters.

The HLP and LNP do not support development of this nature in this location. They also do not support development which would be harmful to the character and 7 Appeal Ref. APP/W0530/W/25/3367160 appearance of the area. Given the aforementioned policy conflict, the proposal would be contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole.

As the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land, footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date. In this scenario, the Framework explains that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal; or 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.

The application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance do not provide a strong reason for refusing the appeal proposal. Therefore, the proposal needs to be assessed against the provisions of paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework.

The proposal would support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. It should also be noted that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area. The proposed housing would be in a rural area but would be located where it would maintain the vitality of services in Leire. Moreover, when having regard to the appeal site’s rural location, I consider that sustainable transport modes would be prioritised.

The proposal could provide a net gain for biodiversity, which would be secured as part of the [name] application. Also, despite their not being a legal agreement before me, I note it is the appellant’s intention to provide serviced plots for self-build and custom housebuilding. The Framework is clear that local planning authorities should seek opportunities to support small sites to come forward for self-build and custom housebuilding. The Framework also promotes an effective use of land. On balance, I ascribe significant weight to the benefits of the proposal.

The Framework is clear that the creation of high quality and beautiful places is fundamental to what the planning process should achieve. It also indicates that planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character. The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, for the reasons set out above.

The Framework also sets out that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led. Whilst it does not protect the countryside from development, it outlines that planning decisions should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Although the proposal would be contrary to the spatial strategy for the reasons set out above, the weight I ascribe to this harm is tempered as the strategy is not currently resulting in sufficient deliverable housing land coming forward.

Paragraph 14 of the Framework explains that in situations where paragraph 11(d) of the Framework applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, in specific circumstances. This is when the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan within five years of the date of the decision and where it contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement.

LNP was made in 2022, within five years of this decision. HLP identifies a requirement for zero dwellings within Leire. The Framework is clear that once the strategic policies have been adopted, these figures should not need re-testing at the neighbourhood plan examination, unless there has been a significant change in circumstances. There is no evidence of a significant change in circumstances between the HLP being adopted and the LNP being made. Consequently, I consider that the identified need of zero dwellings within Leire is in accordance with the Framework.

LNP includes an allocation for five residential units and includes a policy which supports windfall residential development within the Limits to Development boundary. Accordingly, LNP includes policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement. Therefore, the provision of paragraph 14 of the Framework applies.

It should be noted that LNP includes policies and allocations for housing which exceeds the identified housing requirement of Leire. I therefore consider that the plan led system would be significantly undermined if I were to allow the appeal. This is reflected in the extent and number of interested parties’ comments on the planning application, including references to the production of LNP. As such, I ascribe substantial weight to the totality of the harm caused by the appeal proposal.

Although the proposal would provide significant benefits, in this instance, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as replicated by HLP Policy GD1, does not apply.

Finally, the appellant has highlighted multiple appeal decisions where the Inspector determined that the presumption in favour of sustainable development applied, where the local planning authority’s deliverable housing land supply was greater than the Council’s. Regardless, those proposals are a significant distance from the appeal site and there are many differences between the proposals. Accordingly, they hold little relevance to my assessment of the appeal proposal against the policies in the Framework.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.