Appeal 6003432

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 (or permission in principle 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 permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a [name] (TDC) application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

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, with particular regard to the council’s development strategy, highway safety and the character and appearance of the area.

Policy SS1 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031 (2019) (the LP) establishes a spatial strategy for the district, directing new housing to the most sustainable locations in accordance with a settlement hierarchy. Policy SD2 allows for new housing, subject to various criteria, in locations within or adjacent to settlements identified in the hierarchy as appropriate for housing. Frolesworth is not identified in the hierarchy as being a suitable location for new housing development.

In locations outside the settlement hierarchy, such as the appeal site, Policy GD3 allows for rural housing in the specific circumstances identified in Policy GD4. This can include small housing sites of up to 4 dwellings, but only where these meet a need for housing of a particular type, including small dwellings for the elderly and starter homes, providing this has been evidenced through a [name] (RHNS) or a Neighbourhood Plan (NP).

I have been provided with no evidence of either a RHNS or a NP evidencing a need for housing in Frolesworth of any type. Policy GD4 further identifies other forms of new residential development as being acceptable, including housing to meet the needs of a rural worker, the re-use of buildings or the subdivision of existing dwellings. None of the identified circumstances apply here.

The appellant advances that the proposal would be a self-build dwelling. Policy H5 of the LP supports the development of self-build dwellings in locations suitable for housing including allocated sites, committed sites and those which are in accordance with Policy GD2. The appeal site does not meet any of those circumstances and as such, does not constitute an appropriate location for self-build housing. Policy H5 does not weigh in favour of the proposal as a consequence.

Frolesworth is a small settlement with limited services and facilities. Residents are accordingly required to travel to other settlements to meet daily needs, the closest being Sharnford at approximately 2 miles from the appeal site and [name] at around 2.5 miles. The appellant draws my attention to an on-demand bus service serving local settlements, but I have been provided with no other evidence of available public transport. Bearing in mind the distances involved and the rural nature of local roads, which are unlit and without footways, it is likely that the significant majority of journeys to neighbouring settlements for services and facilities would be made by private vehicle. Accordingly, whilst not isolated, the appeal proposal would be located some distance away from services and facilities required for day to day living and would offer little in the way of sustainable travel options.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the appeal site does not represent an appropriate location for housing in the context of the council’s development strategy and settlement hierarchy. Permitting it would cause harm to the council’s development strategy and would lead to an increase in the use of private vehicles to access services and facilities. The proposal accordingly conflicts with the requirements of Policies SS1, GD1, GD2, GD3, GD4 and H5 of the LP which seek to deliver new housing in sustainable locations where the need to travel by private vehicles is reduced.

The proposed dwelling would be accessed via a narrow track from [address]. At its junction with the highway, between Nos 14 and [address], visibility for drivers is severely restricted by the side elevation of No 14, and the hedging of No

The limitations are such that neither the standards for pedestrian nor vehicular visibility required by the [name] (LHDG) could be achieved. Drivers exiting the access would not be able to see pedestrians using the footway or vehicles on the highway and vice versa. This could result in conflict. Land required to provide the required visibility splays falls outside the appeal site and beyond the control of the appellant. Such matters could not therefore be overcome at the TDC stage. In these circumstances, use of the access presents an unacceptable risk to highway safety due to the risk of conflict between users of the access and pedestrians and drivers using [address].

There are disagreements between the parties with regard to the width of the access track. Either way, its width falls below LHDG standards and its narrowness restricts vehicles from passing. As a consequence, there is potential for vehicles attempting to enter the track to meet on-coming vehicles and being required to reverse back onto the public highway. Given the visibility limitations described above, and the additional restrictions afforded to reversing drivers, such manoeuvres would significantly compound my concerns regarding the risks of conflict and harm to highway safety.

A public right of way (PROW), Public Footpath W48/1, runs along the proposed access track. Given the width limitations, this adds further to my conclusions that the proposed access arrangements would be unsafe. There would be potential for conflict between drivers and footpath users including pedestrians, including those with small children, people with pushchairs or those walking dogs.

I note that the track already serves Nos 14 and [address] and additionally provides vehicular access to the garden of [site address] , although does not appear to be in regular use for that purpose. The limitations and potential for conflicts described above therefore already exist and I note that the appellant suggests that the use of the track to serve these properties has occurred for many years without serious safety implications. Whilst the junction of the track with the highway may have been acceptable for low levels of use, a point is reached where the risk to highway safety is no longer acceptable. In my judgment, this proposal would increase the level of use above this safe point.

I find therefore, that the appeal site is not a suitable site for residential development as the increased use of the access track would lead to an unacceptable risk to highway safety in conflict with Policy IN2 of the LP which requires that residential development is provided with safe access having regard to the Highway Authority’s guidance and standards.

The character of Frolesworth is derived from its predominantly linear built-form comprising residential properties fronting the road. The appeal site is located to northern side of the road and is positioned behind existing dwellings. A dwelling on the site would therefore differ from the majority in the village in not having a frontage or presence on [address]. However, I note there are other properties adjacent to the site which display similar characteristics, including those on [address] to the immediate east.

The appeal site currently forms part of the large, well-maintained rear garden of [site address] . It is mostly lawned and incorporates part of a tennis court enclosed by mesh fencing. Only limited public views of the site are possible, from the south-east corner of the site, at the gated junction with the access track. Views of the site from elsewhere along the PROW are not readily possible due to extensive vegetation which borders the appeal site and the adjacent garden land to its north. The PROW is flanked by the gardens of [site address] to its west and the adjacent house on [address] to the east, and it is not until users reach the dog-leg of the PROW, further to the north, that views across open countryside become apparent. The site does not significantly contribute to the character or rural setting of the village as a consequence.

At this in-principle stage, the siting of the proposed dwelling is unknown. However, the northern extremity of the application site would limit the dwelling’s position such that it would not extend further north than the adjacent dwellings to the east. It would not, in those circumstances, represent an incursion further into open countryside than the existing pattern of development.

Taking the above into account, I find that in principle, and subject to suitable design and siting that the proposed development would not necessarily cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, the proposal complies with Policy GD8 of the LP.

As the proposal is located in the vicinity of a listed building, the [name] listed ‘ [site address] ’, I have had special regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).

The appeal site is located in close proximity to, and within sight of, [site address] . The property dates from the 18th Century and includes 19th Century additions. Its substantial grounds, particularly to the rear, contribute to its significance. Impressive vistas of the rear elevation are possible from within the lengthy rear garden.

I am mindful of the in-principle nature of the proposal and that there would be an opportunity to resolve detailed matters at the TDC stage. Given that the appeal site is off-set from the rear vista of the listed building and there is intervening mature vegetation, I am satisfied that an appropriate siting and design could be found at TDC stage to ensure that a dwelling on the site preserved the setting of the listed building in accordance with S66(1).

The appellant advises that the council has not granted enough self-build permissions to satisfy their duty under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended) and this evidence is not contested. The appeal proposal is advanced as a self-build dwelling and whilst there is no mechanism in place to secure this, the appropriate stage to do so would be the TDC stage, should permission be granted in principle. The appeal scheme could therefore contribute to the delivery of self-build properties, and I give this matter considerable weight in favour of the proposal given the current shortfall.

There would also be modest social and economic benefits associated with the construction and occupation of the dwelling, but given the minor scale of the proposals, being a single dwelling, I attribute only minor weight to these factors.

The appellant advances several appeal decisions relating to, amongst other matters, the delivery of self-build dwellings, the economic benefits of new housing, access for waste collection, access for fire vehicles and highway safety. Across the various cases, Inspectors have found both in favour and against the matters advanced by the appellant in support of the appeal proposals. I have insufficient information to determine whether the circumstances of those appeals are directly comparable to this case. I note however, that in each case, the Inspector has been required to weigh competing factors in the planning balance and I shall do similarly.

The appellant has also provided a [name], various documents relating to other sites and research concerning self-build dwellings. [name] have considered these submissions carefully, none of the information provided is sufficient to divert me from the conclusions I have made above in respect of the conflict with the development plan.

I have found that the proposal would conflict with Policies SS1, GD1, GD2, GD3, GD4, H5 and IN2 of the LP. These policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in so far as it seeks to deliver new housing in sustainable locations, reduce the need to travel by private vehicles, and ensure development does not cause unacceptable harm to highway safety. Therefore, the conflict with these policies should be given significant weight in this appeal.

The council has confirmed that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances, footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date. The appeal site is not with an area protected by the policies identified in footnote 7. Accordingly, the balance in paragraph 11 of the Framework is engaged.

Paragraph 11 d) ii) states 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 as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for among other things, directing development to sustainable locations.

The evidence shows that the council can only evidence a 3.1-year housing land supply. This falls significantly below the requirements of the Framework which seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes. I give the benefits of delivering an additional dwelling considerable weight given this significant shortfall.

I acknowledge the appellant’s intention to provide a self-build dwelling. In accordance with paragraph 73 of the Framework, I recognise the benefits that self-build dwellings can deliver in boosting the supply of housing. I apportion moderate weight to this benefit.

I have not found harm in respect of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. However, this is an expectation of all new development, and accordingly this factor is neutral in my overall conclusion.

In my judgment, however, the adverse impacts of the appeal proposal in terms of the harm to the council’s development strategy and the increase in use of private vehicles, together with the unacceptable harm to highway safety, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal is unacceptable in principle with regard to its location and the proposed land use. Given that the appeal site is an unsuitable location for new housing in principle, the amount of development proposed is also unacceptable.

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