Appeal 6003687

The appeal is dismissed.

I have adopted the description of development in the banner heading above from the decision notice rather than the planning application form. This is because it more accurately describes the proposal.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance advises 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 (permission in principle) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second stage (‘technical details consent’) 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 subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Subsequent to the refusal of the planning application, the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority’s emerging Local Plan (the eLP) has reached an advanced stage of preparation and it is expected to be adopted in June. Significant weight can therefore be afforded to the parts of the eLP not subject of main modifications. Both parties are aware of the eLP and the appeal has provided them with the opportunity to comment on its implications to their cases. As such, I am satisfied that the interests of neither party would be prejudiced by my taking it into account.

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 South Lakeland Core Strategy [name] 2010 (the LP) set out a strategic approach to the location of new development. Saved policy CS1.1 directs development to existing service centres which have adequate service and infrastructure capacity. It also sets out a sequential approach which prioritises the use of existing buildings and previously developed land (PDL) in settlements before suitable infill gaps in settlements and lastly the development of other land where this is well related to housing, jobs, services and infrastructure.

[name] policy CS1.2 sets out the settlement hierarchy and it identifies that Casterton is not a service centre, instead falling under the umbrella of smaller villages, hamlets and open countryside. The smaller rural settlements have no defined settlement boundaries but may accommodate small-scale infilling and rounding off to meet local need. In the open countryside, development may be permitted if there is an essential requirement for a rural location, to sustain existing businesses, affordable housing and appropriate extensions to or changes of use of existing buildings.

The eLP embeds a similar strategic locational approach, directing development to the most sustainable locations in accordance with the settlement hierarchy. However, as this relates to the Yorkshire Dales National Park, it differs from the earlier [name] settlement hierarchy. It identifies Casterton as a large village with a defined housing development boundary.

eLP policy CP3 sets out that new development will be focused on allocated sites and suitable unallocated land within or adjacent to the settlements, limited to a scale appropriate to settlement character and function. Outside of settlements, new residential development may be permitted subject to evidence of local need for affordable housing or the exceptional needs of a rural based enterprise.

The appeal site is a rectangular parcel of grassland extending to around 0.19ha in size and formed by the subdivision of a larger undeveloped field. It sits alongside [address], which connects Casterton and [name]. The appeal site has a long roadside frontage with a continuous stone boundary wall and it is bounded to the south by [name] and to the north by land within the Casterton school complex. The land on the opposite side of the road is undeveloped.

Although not part of an agricultural holding, the appeal site is well related to the agricultural land on both sides of the road and that rises away eastwards towards the open fells of the National Park. [address] is a typically narrow rural road enclosed by traditional stone walls and hedgerows. The appeal site field is visually, physically and functionally part of the open countryside.

Casterton is a somewhat loose settlement with clusters of buildings interspersed with open space. The appeal site is part of a wide undeveloped gap. To the south, [name] is part of a ribbon of development. However, to the north, the school buildings are deeply set back from the road and the closest building that fronts the road is roughly 125m from the appeal site. While the school frontage is developed with hardstanding and tennis courts, it is open and free of buildings. In passing [name] on the left, there are glimpses of the fence that encloses the menage but the menage surface is not readily visible and the low post and rail fence is not conspicuous.

There is no definition of infill development in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). For the purposes of the LP, infilling refers to building taking place on a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up frontage. In this case, there is a built-up frontage to the south of the appeal site but the roadside land to the north is open for a considerable distance. The neighbouring low level menage is largely screened by hedgerows and it is in any case a typically rural form of development such as would be expected in the countryside. Taking into account the situation on the ground, the appeal site is not within the built envelope of the village. It is not PDL nor a vacant plot in an otherwise built-up frontage. It would not be infilling within a building group or rounding off development. The proposal would be the encroachment of built development into the countryside.

I note the suggestion that, because the LP does not define boundaries for small villages and hamlets, it allows for infill development in the open countryside. However, saved LP policy CS1.2 distinguishes between small rural settlements where small-scale infilling and rounding off applies and the open countryside where development is exceptionally justified for specific reasons. In this case, the appeal site is not within a settlement and the proposal would not be a type of development permitted in the countryside. With reference to the eLP policy, the appeal site is located outside of the housing development boundary for Casterton. It is unallocated land adjacent to the settlement, but the proposal would not be affordable local needs housing nor connected to a rural based enterprise.

The neighbouring field that includes the menage is part of the [name] complex. The menage and the hardstanding and tennis courts to the front of the school may be PDL, but these low level features contribute to the sense of openness along [address]. Even accepting that the school could utilise permitted development rights to construct a building closer to the road than currently exists, there is little evidence it intends to construct buildings on its open frontage or in the location of the menage. The presence of PDL and theoretical future buildings closer to the appeal site than currently exist does not provide a justification for the proposal.

[name] may be a large village, it provides limited services and facilities. These include the school, golf course, church, public house, garage and village hall. As such, there are some employment opportunities and future occupiers would provide support for these local services. Even so, Casterton would not meet the daily needs of future occupiers, and they would need to travel further afield to access even a basic range of shops and other services such as GP practices.

The appeal site is around 2 miles from the centre of [name]. This is a key service centre with good public transport links to outlying settlements and providing schools, library, doctor’s surgery and retail functions. However, while school bus services operate in Casterton, there is apparently no regular public transport. [name] is further than could be considered a short or convenient walk and the intervening rural roads with no footways or streetlighting are not conducive to walking. Future occupiers might cycle to [name] on occasion, but this would not be a realistic alternative to car travel.

I am mindful that the appeal site is only just beyond the developed edge of Casterton, and both the LP and eLP allow for some development in the settlement. Nevertheless, the location does not minimise the need to travel and future occupiers would be heavily reliant on private car journeys. The location does not weigh in favour of the proposal nor overcome the conflict with the spatial strategy.

Detailed design would be a matter for the technical details consent stage. However, an illustrative plan has been provided to show that 2 new dwellings could be accommodated in residential plots of a similar depth to nearby [name] and Loftwood. The plan illustrates that the proposal would extend of the ribbon of residential development that currently terminates with [name]. Even if the dwellings were single storey, they would enclose the road and interrupt the visual connection to the wider countryside setting of the settlement.

Irrespective of the subsequent design of the dwellings, there would be an adverse visual and urbanising effect by virtue of the loss of boundary wall to form at least one new highway access with visibility splays, car parking hardstanding, domestic outbuildings and paraphernalia. The proposed extension of ribbon development into the countryside would erode local distinctiveness and sense of place. It would not conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park.

Therefore, I conclude that the site is not suitable for new residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and amount of development. Accordingly, it would conflict with the aims of saved LP policies CS1.1, CS1.2 and CS8.2 in relation to rural housing and the protection of the special qualities of the National Park. It would conflict with the aims of eLP policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP8 insofar as these relate to the location of new housing development and the statutory purposes of the National Park. It would also conflict with the aims of the Framework in relation to rural housing and the great weight that should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks.

My attention has been drawn to the appellants’ personal circumstances including advancing years, health and mobility. In reaching my decision, I have had due regard to the Public Section Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010. While the appellants are only seeking to establish the principle of residential development at this stage, they intend that one dwelling would be constructed as a lifetime home for themselves and the other would be potentially suitable for family who currently live outside of the area. This would be a benefit to the appellants as they could continue to live in Casterton with the support of family. However, while [name] may no longer suitable, there is little evidence that alternative solutions have been explored and reasonably discounted such as its adaption or extension to meet the appellants’ future needs including extended family living arrangements.

Furthermore, and irrespective of their intentions, there would be little guarantee that the appellants or their family would occupy either or both of the new dwellings. In this regard, the evidence states that only 1 new dwelling is absolutely required. Thus, while I am sympathetic to their circumstances, it has not been demonstrated that there are no alternatives that could deliver similar benefits without conflict with the development plan. For this reason, the appellants’ personal circumstances carry only limited weight in favour of 2 new dwellings in this location.

Two new residential dwellings would make a limited contribution to the supply of housing. In the context of the government’s aims in relation to significantly boosting the supply of homes, this carries limited weight in favour of the proposal. There would be limited economic benefits during construction and future occupiers would provide limited support to the local economy and community.

I note the suggestion that a planning condition could be imposed restricting the proposal to local occupancy. I am not aware that such a condition could be imposed on a grant of permission in principle, but conditions relating to occupancy would likely be imposed on a subsequent technical details consent. In this regard, eLP policy C1 sets out that in the National Park single new houses will be restricted to local housing needs only and proposals of more than one dwelling, such as this, will be restricted to principal residency. Matters to be addressed at the later consent stage carry little weight in favour of the principle of residential development.

On the other hand, the conflict with the spatial development strategy in both the LP and emerging eLP weighs against the proposal to a significant degree. The harm to the character and appearance of the area, and National Park, weighs moderately against the appeal.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the limited benefits and appellants’ personal circumstances, that would outweigh that conflict.

Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.