Appeal 6004056

The appeal is dismissed.

As a mandatory requirement of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, development is required to deliver a [name] (BNG) of at least 10%. The appellants identify on the application forms that the proposal, as a self-build dwelling, would be exempt from the statutory requirement. However, there needs to be a mechanism to secure the delivery of the dwelling as a self-build dwelling meeting the definitions of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (the Self-Build Act) to qualify for this exemption.

Both parties were invited to comment on this matter which I have gone on to consider as a main issue in this appeal.

Accordingly, the main issues are: • Whether the proposed development would be secured as a self-build dwelling and therefore be exempt from providing a [name]; and, • The effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the area.

The council’s decision notice includes reference to the dwelling being self-build in the description of development. I have no evidence that the appellant agreed to this change in description, but regardless, this wording alone would not be sufficient to secure the delivery of the dwelling as self-build. The enforceability of a planning condition to secure this is doubtful as it is not clear what remedy there would be in the event of a breach. As such, it would not meet the tests for conditions set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I have been provided with decisions where such a condition has been imposed by the local planning authority but for reasons of enforceability as I have set out, I do not accept that approach.

A site-specific planning obligation would be the appropriate mechanism to ensure that the development of the proposed dwelling would meet the legal definition in the Self-Build Act. As no such obligation is before me, I cannot be certain that the development would be self-build and therefore that the BNG exemption could be secured with any degree of certainty.

I have considered whether the proposal would be exempt from BNG as a consequence of the de-minimis exemption given the appellant’s contention that the development is wholly contained within the curtilage of previously developed land and avoids any encroachment into open countryside. However, the proposal includes an extension of the existing curtilage south-eastwards into the adjacent field to accommodate the construction of a new access drive and proposes the reduction in height of the roadside hedgerow forming the entire north-western boundary of the site to facilitate visibility splays. The development does not therefore fall within the thresholds to be considered de-minimis. There are no other exemptions relevant in this case. Consequently, the proposal would be liable to provide BNG.

As the proposal does not provide the minimum information set out in Article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (the DMPO), it could not be assured that the biodiversity gain objective would be met and that the development would achieve at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the on-site habitat.

Taking all of the above into account, I am not satisfied that the proposal could be secured as a self-build development and it is not therefore, exempt from BNG. Consequently, the proposal would not comply with the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Act or the DMPO. I attach considerable weight to this failing.

The appeal site is in a rural location to the west of [site address] and within open countryside. The site contains a former stable building which is now unused, save for some limited storage of equestrian material. A hard-surfaced apron serves the building.

Policy GD4 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031 (2019) (the LP) reflects the Framework and permits the re-use of redundant or disused buildings that results in an enhancement of their immediate setting as an appropriate route for the delivery of new homes in the countryside. Policy GD4 does not seek to prevent or limit the extension of such buildings to facilitate their conversion.

The proposed extension is single-storey, flat-roofed, and positioned within the inner courtyard formed by the existing main range and projecting wings of the building. Whilst set in from the gable projection to the south-west of the building, it would extend marginally proud of the shorter north-east gabled wing. Its south-east facing elevation would be primarily glazed.

The building is currently screened from [site address] by a substantial hedgerow along the north-western boundary of the site. The proposal requires a significant reduction in the height of the hedgerow to 0.6m to provide an appropriate visibility splay to the south-west. These works would open the site to views from the road.

However, by being primarily enveloped by the existing building with a height which broadly corresponds with the eaves of the existing building, views of the proposed extension from public vantage points would be limited. They would be restricted to distant and fleeting glimpses of the north-east corner of the extension where it would be seen against the backdrop of the projecting south-west wing behind it. The extension would not therefore, be a dominant or obtrusive feature.

A proposed flue rises from the roof of the extension and would be visible from the road. Whilst this would have an impact on the rural surroundings through its urbanising effect, the council does not cite concerns with this structure, and I accept that the harm caused would be limited. Views of the proposed extension from the public right of way to the east are prevented by tall vegetation.

In views from within the appellant’s private land, the pitched roof and projecting gabled wings of the main building would retain the original form and character of [site address] . The extension would accordingly meet the requirements of Policy GD3 of the LP and be seen as a subservient addition within the envelope of the existing building.

Chapter 9 (“Conversion of redundant and disused buildings”) of the council’s Development Management Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2021) advises that substantial extensions to converted buildings should be avoided and accommodation requirements should be met within the existing building. Where required, extensions should be small, subservient to the original and simple, following the traditional form of the building.

I have found that despite its sizeable footprint, the proposed extension would be almost fully enveloped by the existing building, that its flat-roof and height would retain the form of the existing building’s roof, and that the C-shaped form of the building would be maintained with the existing gable projections remaining the dominant features on the south-east elevation. The size of the extension would accordingly not lead to significant harm to the rural character of the surroundings. The SPD does not therefore, indicate that the decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan in this case.

Taking all this into account, I find that the proposed extension would protect the original form of [site address] and would not cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting of the building through the replacement of external surfaces on the building with permanent materials and would meet the requirements of Policy GD4 as a consequence. Overall, therefore, I find that the proposed extension would comply with Policies GD3, GD4 and GD8 which requires development of a high standard of design which protects local character.

I conclude that the proposals would accord with the policies of the development plan as a whole and that due to its design and siting, the proposed extension would not harm the character or appearance of the rural surroundings.

Notwithstanding this, I have found that the self-build BNG exemption cannot be appropriately secured through any binding mechanism before me. In the absence of a secured exemption, the proposal does not meet the mandatory requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In failing to meet this legal requirement, the appeal must be dismissed.