Appeal 6003723

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. 6003279 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.

[name] policies GD3 and GD4 include criteria which specify the scenarios where proposed housing, would be acceptable in other villages, rural settlements, and the countryside. HLP Policy GD3 specifies that rural housing will be supported where it is in accordance with HLP Policy GD4.

HLP Policy GD4 supports housing on small sites of no more than 4 dwellings which are physically and visually connected to settlements. Provided they meet a local need for housing of a particular type that has been evidenced through a rural housing needs survey or a neighbourhood plan. The proposal comprises of the development of up to 3 dwellings. The appeal site borders a property on [address]. Accordingly, the appeal site is both physically and visually connected to the settlement of Leire. Notwithstanding this, the appeal is not supported by a rural housing needs survey. It therefore falls to consider Leire Neighbourhood Plan, March 2022 (LNP) to conclude on whether the appeal proposal conforms with the spatial strategy set out in HLP.

LNP Policy H4 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 LNP Policy H2. Furthermore, LNP does not identify a need for the proposed type of housing. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to the spatial strategy set out within both HLP and 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. 3 Settlement Hierarchy Assessment, Harborough District Council, January 2025

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 HLP. 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.

The appeal site comprises of an area of improved grassland next to an access track. It is partially enclosed by a dense hedgerow. There are some buildings within the appeal site which have been used for domestic storage. They are modest in size and timber clad. Despite their domestic use, the buildings have an agricultural and utilitarian appearance. Notwithstanding this, the landowners have explained that the appeal site has been used as an extension of their garden. The grassed area is well-maintained and appears domestic in character.

The character of the appeal site is heavily influenced by residential development on [address]. I am also conscious that permission in principle6 has been granted for the conversion of an agricultural barn which is accessed by the track that runs through the site. Consequently, the appeal site is likely to be further influenced by nearby residential development in the future.

Taking all of the above into account, the appeal site has a domestic character. However, the hedgerow provides a strong verdant boundary, and development is more sporadic beyond this. As such, the appeal site appears to be within but on the edge of the village.

Dwellings in this part of Leire tend to front onto a road or are set toward the middle of a spacious plot. Although the detailed design of the proposal would be the subject of a [name] application, the constrained nature of the appeal site will influence the proposal’s design. Given the narrowness of the site, it is likely that 4 Application Refs. 19/01860; 21/01248; 23/01063; 24/01385; 25/00367; 25/00952/FUL; and 26/00478/PIP 5 Planning permission Ref. 24/01116/OUT 6 Permission in [name]. 26/00478/PIP the proposed dwellings would either be double fronted or large sections of the gardens would be to one side of the dwellings to allow them to front the road. Accordingly, the proposed development would appear incongruous in the street scene.

Due to the size of the site and its constraints, the footprint to plot ratios of the proposed dwellings would likely be higher than nearby development. This alongside the limited space for rear gardens would result in the proposed dwellings appearing cramped. Furthermore, the addition of a substantial amount of built development would erode the strong verdant edge of the village.

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.

On balance, 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.

Interested parties contend that the proposal would result in the loss of ridge and furrow, which is identified as a non-designated heritage asset within LNP. Nevertheless, LNP does not identify the appeal site as one of the surviving fields of ridge and furrow. I also did not observe ridge and furrow within the appeal site during my site visit. Therefore, there is no substantive evidence that the appeal proposal would harm or lead to the loss of ridge and furrow.

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] Statement7. In this instance the development of up to 3 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.

The description of development specifies that a minimum of one unit would be a serviced plot for self-build and custom housebuilding. Any resultant [name] application would need to be in accordance with the permission in 7 Planning Reform: [name], 16 December 2025, Ministry of [name] and Local Government principle. Therefore, it would have to include at least one serviced plot. Nevertheless, there is no mechanism before me to ensure that the serviced plot 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 plot would be delivered, if at all. Consequently, the weight I ascribe to the benefit of providing at least one serviced plot is reduced.

The appellant has highlighted an appeal8 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 a self-build dwelling. 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.

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 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. 8 Appeal Ref. APP/W0530/W/25/3367160

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 at least one serviced plot 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 and advises that planning decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes. It goes on to explain that such proposals should be approved unless substantial harm would be caused. On balance, I ascribe substantial 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 and appeal, 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 substantial 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.