Appeal 6003412

The appeal is dismissed.

The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved for future consideration. I have determined the appeal on this basis treating the plans which show a potential layout and elevations as illustrative.

The main issue in the appeal is whether or not the appeal site is a suitable site for new housing having regard to: • local policies for the location of new housing; • the accessibility of the site to sustainable modes of transport, services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site forms part of the land associated with the host property. It is largely laid to grass and is bounded by wooden or post and wire fencing on 3 sides. The host property lies to the south west of the site, whilst to the north and east lie open fields, and to the south, beyond the outbuildings associated with the host property, is the neighbouring property and its garden and then [address] – a long row of terraced houses that is set perpendicular to [site address] .

The appeal site is unallocated in the [site address] Plan (adopted 2020) (CDP). Policy 6 of the CDP sets out 10 criteria to assess developments on unallocated sites that are either (i) within the built-up area; or (ii) outside the built-up area (except where a settlement boundary has been defined in a neighbourhood plan) but well-related to a settlement. The supporting text indicates that for the purposes of this policy, the built-up area is contained within the main body of existing built development of a settlement or within a settlement boundary defined in a neighbourhood plan. It also states that when assessing whether a site is well related to a settlement the physical and visual relationship of the site to the existing built-up area of the settlement will be a key consideration. The glossary of the CDP states that land that falls outside the main built-up area of a settlement is regarded as countryside for planning policy terms.

Policy 10 of the CDP states that development in the countryside will not be permitted unless it is for one of the exceptions set out in the policy or is allowed for by specific policies in the plan.

Shildon is a relatively compact town focussed on the main services and facilities in the town centre. In the northwards direction on either side of [address] are built up areas comprising mainly residential properties. However, around the junction with [address], there is just a ribbon of development on the eastern side of the road, with the western side being largely open. Given this, in my view, [address] represents the northern boundary of the main body of the town and the appeal site lies beyond this. The presence of the signpost for the town at the entrance to the site does not alter my conclusion in this regard. For the purposes of planning policy, the appeal site is therefore considered to be countryside.

The proposal is not for any of the forms of development listed in Policy 10. However, Policy 6 is listed as one of the specific policies. So, if the proposal accords with Policy 6 it would not be contrary to Policy 10.

The ribbon of development that stretches north along the east side of [site address] comprises predominantly relatively high density terraced properties. [address] although perpendicular to [site address] is similar in nature. [address], [address] and [site address] are very different in nature. They are both single storey properties set much further back from the road frontage and sited in spacious grounds. They therefore have a very different pattern and form and unlike the other housing in the ribbon of development have a semi-rural character. Moreover, the relatively lengthy gardens associated with the houses on [address], adds to the physical separation between these existing houses and the appeal site and other housing on [site address] , even if they are not isolated.

The appeal site is largely laid to grass. Its character is different from the formal garden area around the host property and is much more akin in both its nature and appearance to the grass field to the east, which is also in the appellant’s ownership. Whilst the tall vegetation in the vicinity limits views of the site, it is clearly visible from the public footpath immediately to the north of the boundary and from stretches of the road when travelling southwards where there are gaps in the roadside trees. In these views the site appears to form part of the open fields adjoining it rather than the housing further to the south.

Therefore, having had regard to the physical and visual relationship of the site to the existing built-up area, I consider that the appeal site is not well related to Shildon.

Shildon contains a good range of services and facilities. The nearest primary school is just about within walking distance of the site. Whilst there are a few other individual shops and facilities in the area the majority of services and facilities are in the town centre. The route between the site and the town centre has pavements and streetlights but is not flat. The distance and the topography mean most people would not choose to walk to the centre from the site.

Whilst [site address] is a bus route the nearest active bus stop in either direction is well beyond the recommended walking distance, and again the convenience of walking is affected by the topography and the lack of lights on the route to the stops to the north. As a result, I consider future occupiers of the site would be reliant largely on the private car to meet their day to day needs.

Notwithstanding the location of the outbuildings and the area of hardstanding associated with the host property to the south, the appeal site is still located to the rear of the host property. It would also be set even further behind the building line of [site address] than the host property and the neighbouring property.

Although access is not being determined at this stage, the appellant has indicated that the proposed development would utilise the existing drive from which there is already an access point to the site. Even if the proposed dwelling is not located directly to the rear of the existing dwelling, and would not result in cramped tandem development, the site still represents a backland site.

The majority of housing in the area fronts the highway and has its own access. So the proposed form of the development would be incongruous and would not respect the prevailing form of development in the area. In support of the appeal my attention was drawn to a relatively new dwelling to the rear of houses on [address] and [site address] . However, this property has its own access from [address] and so does not represent a direct parallel to the appeal scheme.

The site is currently open land, which in policy terms is in the countryside. The development of the site for a dwelling and the domestic paraphernalia that would be associated with it would alter the character of the site and result in the encroachment of the built form into the countryside.

As set out above, visibility of the site is restricted to the adjacent public footpath and short stretches of the road. Sensitive landscaping of the site could in time help to reduce visibility of the proposal further. Moreover, in these views the dwelling would often be seen in the context of the houses on [address] which would help reduce the visual incongruity of the proposal.

Notwithstanding this, all in all, the form and nature of the proposed development would represent encroachment of the built form into the countryside and an incongruous form of development that would create a limited degree of unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.

All in all, having had regard to the local policies for the location of new housing, the accessibility of the site to sustainable modes of transport, services and facilities, and the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, I consider the appeal site would not represent a suitable site for new housing and would be contrary to Policies 6 and 10 of the CDP set out above. It would also conflict with paragraphs 115 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seek to ensure sustainable transport modes are prioritised in the location of development and that developments are sympathetic to local character.

Although the [name] results show a strong record of past delivery, the Council have indicated that it currently only has a 4.4 year housing land supply and have not disputed that paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is engaged. This means that planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The appeal site is located outside the built-up area of Shildon on a site not well related to the settlement. It is therefore, in policy terms in the open countryside and contrary to Policies 6 and 10 of the CDP. I give the conflict with these policies significant weight. In addition, I have concluded that the site would not be well related to sustainable modes of transport or services and facilities contrary to CDP Policy 6f) and paragraph 115 of the Framework. I give this conflict moderate weight. The proposal would also result in an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. This conflicts with Policy 6d) and paragraph 135 of the Framework, and I give limited weight to this conflict.

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. However, as the proposal is for a single dwelling, the contribution it would make to the housing land supply is minimal and the economic benefits would be limited, so I give both these economic and social benefits limited weight.

Overall, I consider that the harms I have identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. Consequently, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of development as defined in the Framework and there are no material considerations that indicate planning permission should be granted for development that is not in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.