Appeal 6003413

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for an award of costs was made by [site address] Ltd. against Lewes District Council. This application is the subject of a separate

The original application was made in outline with all matters reserved for future consideration apart from access. I assessed the appeal on that basis. I have had regard to the submitted drawings, but have considered all elements shown as indicative, apart from the proposed access.

The Council confirmed at the Hearing that it no longer wished to pursue its objections related to the vehicular access in terms of visibility at the junction between [address] and [address]. This narrows down reason for refusal 3, and I have considered the appeal accordingly.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether occupiers of the proposed development would have reasonable and safe pedestrian access to Plumpton Green.

Plumpton Green is a rural settlement arranged around a main thoroughfare that runs roughly north to south. It is largely characterised by linear development with some cul-de-sac branching off the main road. A railway line cuts east to west along the southern edge of the village which provides a strong and well-defined settlement end to Plumpton Green.

The area to the south of the railway line where [site address] is situated lies within the countryside. In contrast with the built-up character of Plumpton Green, this area generally has a rural appearance and is typically characterised by scattered houses and commercial uses, along with a mosaic of fields and patches of woodland. [site address] is a manicured environment which includes a range of associated buildings and fencing. However, its green and spacious character assists in the transition between the village and the wider countryside.

The appeal site is located at one end of a long strip of land laid to hardstanding which forms the overspill car park for [site address] . The site is being temporarily used as a depot for a company providing support services for the local wastewater network, and it accommodates some structures of a utilitarian appearance, as well as parked vehicles. There is a driver training centre at the opposite end of the car park.

There is a mature tree line situated along the western boundary of the site which makes a positive contribution to the visual quality of the area. A public footpath runs adjacent to the site. This footpath is surfaced, and it extends over the railway line into Plumpton Green.

Given its location to the south of the railway line, the proposal would be physically separated from Plumpton Green. Consequently, despite intervisibility between the appeal site and the dwellings on the opposite side of the railway line, the scheme would jar with the general pattern of development in the area. Although the proposal would not conflict with the predominantly north/south arrangement of Plumpton Green, irrespective of its final layout, the siting of the proposed development would appear disconnected from the village and dilute the well-defined settlement edge.

The dwellings in the vicinity of the racecourse are scattered and arranged in an informal manner. I acknowledge that the site is associated with activities at the racecourse. However, the appeal scheme on account of introducing residential development within the site would appear incongruous and physically disconnected from the racecourse, as well as Plumpton Green. While there is a bungalow located next to the racing track, it reads in the context of the existing racecourse buildings and therefore would not justify the proposed development.

The proposal would likely be screened in mid-range views from the surrounding area due to the presence of intervening features including landscaping, bund, and structures within the racecourse. However, the proposed dwellings would be noticeable in close quarters while travelling along the adjacent public footpath. Irrespective of the final layout and design, and whilst noting the intended planting, the presence of dwellings in this location would appear as a stark and assertive finger of development, at odds with its surroundings.

While layout is reserved for future consideration, owing to the size of the site and proposal to accommodate nine dwellings, it is likely that some properties would be located close to the existing trees. Even if appropriate tree protection measures could be implemented during construction and having regard to the appellant’s intentions to retain and plant trees, due to the likely proximity and orientation of some trees to the proposed plots, the trees would cause overshadowing to some of the new dwellings and/or their gardens. Consequently, this relationship would likely place pressure to prune or remove trees in the future. Future residents would be aware of the presence of trees but would not necessarily be aware of their effects on their property. As the trees are visually important and provide a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, any harm or loss of such trees would have a detrimental effect thereto.

In addition to the race fixtures, the racecourse holds a number of events throughout the year. While these events may attract structures and increased levels of activity at the racecourse, these are temporary and of a different nature to a residential use. In addition, the evidence indicates that the current use of the site is temporary in nature. Therefore, these matters do not justify the permanent harm resulting from the proposed development.

Given the above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies CP10 and CP11 of the Lewes District Local Plan Part 1 [name] 2010-2030 (2016) (LPP1), and Policies DM1 and DM25 of the Lewes District Local Plan Part 2 Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2020 (LPP2). Among other things, these policies support development which responds sympathetically to the site and its local context and seek to protect the distinctive character and quality of the countryside.

The appellant has drawn my attention to Policies 2 and 3 of the Plumpton Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2030 (2018), which pertain to the new-build environment, design, landscape and biodiversity. While the Council’s first reason for refusal does not refer to these policies, I do not find they would offer support to the appeal scheme, which would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area for the reasons set out above.

LPP1 Policy CP11 states that new development should be adaptable, safe and accessible to all. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) at paragraph 117 includes a requirement that the needs of persons with reduced mobility should be addressed in all transport modes.

The site lies close to the edge of Plumpton Green, and the village provides limited local services including a railway station, primary school, convenience store, and some employment. The appellant has suggested different options that residents could utilise to reach Plumpton Green by foot. Option 1 comprises the adjacent public footpath; option 2 would be through the station platforms and main station entrance on [address]; and option 3 would make use of an unmade footpath that runs parallel to the railway line from the site to a pedestrian gated crossing.

In terms of option 1, while the distance into Plumpton Green would be short and the footpath is paved, it would not provide level access due to the need to cross the footbridge over the railway line. As such, while some future occupants would be able to utilise this pedestrian route into Plumpton Green, it would not be suitable for some members of the community, including those with restricted mobility.

While the route comprising option 2 would be level, the platforms do not form part of the public highway, being owned by [name]. Therefore, this land is not under the control of the appellant and there is nothing before me to indicate that pedestrians have rights of access across the platform or that this access would be available at all times, if for instance [name] were to install ticket barriers. Therefore, this route would not provide a suitable pedestrian access into the village.

Option 3 would include a path which is not a recognised public right of way. Moreover, whilst this footpath is acceptable for anyone undertaking a walk in the countryside with sturdy footwear, it would be much less suitable for everyday use and difficult to negotiate when slippery, if it was wet or icy. Moreover, the path is narrow and stepped on its section next to the level crossing. Therefore, this would not offer a safe or suitable route into the village for those with reduced mobility or with pushchairs.

The remaining option would be via the racecourse access track, [address] and [address]. While this access would be step free and paved, it would be lengthy and over roads without street lighting or pedestrian footway and with little soft verging that could provide refuge for pedestrians. This arrangement would therefore result in a potentially harmful conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, particularly for vulnerable persons.

While it may be that future residents would rely on the private car to reach any shops, services or facilities which are not available in the village, the lack of a suitable pedestrian route into Plumpton Green means that the proposal would fail to address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport. Bus stops are available within Plumpton Green, however future residents would be required to walk the above-mentioned routes and therefore reaching them by foot would not be suitable to all. There would be level access into the rail station, however this would not successfully address the lack of a suitable step free pedestrian access into Plumpton Green.

Thus, occupiers of the proposed development would not have reasonable and safe pedestrian access to Plumpton Green, contrary to LPP1 Policies CP11 and CP13 and LPP2 Policy DM25. Amongst other things these policies seek to ensure that the design and layout of new development prioritise the need of pedestrians and is safe and accessible to all.

I have considered the appeal scheme on its own merits with regard to the evidence presented. Nevertheless, reference is made to an appeal decision1, in which the Inspector has considered the construction of one dwellinghouse in a location near Plumpton Green. However, there is limited evidence before me to demonstrate that this scheme is comparable in context to the appeal site. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/P1425/W/24/3347967

Further, there is limited evidence before me to suggest that the pattern of development of the villages referred to by the appellant is similar to that of Plumpton Green, even if they have either a railway line or main highway running through them. Consequently, I do not find that this provides compelling evidence to support this appeal.

I have had regard to Plumpton Parish Council’s support for the proposal, but it does not in itself render the scheme appropriate nor outweigh the harm that I have identified.

The parties agree that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and that the figure is in the region of 2.35 years. In such circumstances, paragraph 11 d) ii of the Framework states that 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.

In terms of benefits, the proposal would meet the Framework’s objectives of boosting the supply of housing and would deliver nine new dwellings on a windfall site. There would be some economic benefits during the period of construction and following occupation of the development. This would be a moderate benefit given the limited number of additional dwellings.

The racecourse is the second largest local employer, and it has ageing facilities. The proposal would assist the racecourse in raising funds to undertake the works needed to upgrade the quality of its facilities, including stabling owners and trainers room, and improving the visitor experience. At the Hearing the appellant clarified that their business model is such that all profits are reinvested back into the racecourse. However, no mechanism has been put forward to link the development to the improvements to the racecourse in planning terms. Moreover, the evidence presented at the Hearing indicated that other means of raising funds had not been fully explored. Given such, I am not satisfied that the appeal scheme is the only means of raising the necessary monies. On this basis, while I acknowledge the pressure faced by the racecourse, this only carries moderate weight in favour of the scheme.

The requirements related to water consumption within the dwellings are covered by other legislation and the delivery of any relevant noise mitigation measures is largely a policy requirement. As such, these are neutral factors that neither weigh for or against the proposed development.

For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, and future occupiers would not have reasonable and safe access to shops, facilities and services. The Framework seeks to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users and minimise conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. Therefore, the conflict between the development and LPP1 Policies CP10, CP11 and CP13 and LPP2 Policies DM1 and DM25 should be given significant weight in this appeal.

Thus, the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.