Appeal 6004108

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for the development, having regard to national and local planning policies including minimising travel demand.

The appeal site is located in a rural location on land at [address]. It is accessed via a long, private, single lane, gravel track from [address]. The proposed dwelling would be at the location of existing remains of a former dwelling which has not been in residential use since a fire in the mid 1970’s. The nearest settlement is [name] which is approximately 2km away.

[name] 1 (CP1) and 2 (CP2) of the [name], 2015 (the [name]) set out the settlement and delivery strategies respectively. CP1 identifies four tiers of settlement, and CP2 identifies that development will be directed to these categories of settlement. The appeal site is not located adjacent to any of these categories of settlement.

The appeal site is located within the Calne Community Area, which is defined in Core Policy 8 (CP8) of the [name]. This policy confirms that development should be in accordance with CP1.

As the site is not within any area identified for development, it is in the open countryside and saved Policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 (the NWLP) (Policy H4), which relates to development in the open countryside, is relevant, although the Council indicates that it does not fully align with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), or policies CP1 and CP2 which are more up to date, and should therefore be afforded greater weight. However, Policy H4 and policies in the Framework seek to control development of isolated homes in the open countryside, permitting development only in specific circumstances, which do not apply in this case.

The proposal is therefore development in the open countryside in conflict with policies CP1, CP2 and CP8 of the [name] and H4 of the NWLP. These policies direct development to within settlement boundaries and control residential development in the open countryside.

Policies CP60 and CP61 of the [name], seek to reduce the need to travel, particularly by private car, and promote sustainable modes of travel, by planning development in accessible locations and prioritising walking, cycling and public transport above car travel. The Framework states that development plans and proposals should identify and pursue opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport.

The appellants’ planning statement provides a table of distances to facilities including a shop that is 1.3 miles away and a primary school that is 1.4 miles away at [name]. The propensity to walk and cycle will depend on the attractiveness of the destination, distance and quality of the route. The route to [name] is along a narrow road that has no pedestrian or cycle facilities, is unlit, is subject to national speed limit and forward visibility is limited in places. The distances, combined with standard of route and potential vehicle speeds, are such that travel by walking or cycling to these facilities would be unattractive and unlikely to be used on a regular basis. There is no evidence before me of local bus services, that could reasonably be used by residents of the proposed dwelling to access facilities and services. Access to facilities and services would therefore be heavily reliant on private car travel.

The appellants note that ultra-low and zero emission vehicles are contained within the definition of sustainable transport modes, provided within the Glossary of the Framework, and that provision of an electric vehicle charging point will encourage a sustainable mode. While provision of an EV charger would facilitate ownership of an electric vehicle, vehicle choice would be down to the occupants of the proposed dwelling. An EV car would still rank at the bottom of the travel hierarchy set out in policy CP61.

Policies in the Framework support locating development in accessible locations, with scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use, which offer a genuine choice of transport mode, and which prioritise walking, cycling and public transport. While noting that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, in this instance the development would be reliant on car travel.

The appellants note the use of previously developed land as a benefit. The Framework does recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs may have to be found beyond existing settlements, and in such circumstances encourages the use of previously developed land where suitable opportunities exist. However, the appeal proposal is for a home and not a business or community use.

The appellants have submitted a number of planning appeal decisions in support of the appeal proposal which I have considered as follows: a) Appeal Ref: APP/Y3940/W/24/3345598, dated 21 January 2025. This decision relates to 145 homes, at Westbury, outside a settlement boundary but where services and facilities in the market town are accessible by non-car modes, so is not comparable to the appeal proposal. The decision does note that EV vehicles represent a sustainable transport mode and I have addressed this point above; b) Appeal Ref: APP/Y3940/W/24/3349828, dated 27 January 2025. This decision relates to a development of 60 homes in [name] in a location where accessibility to facilities is considered sustainable by both parties. The decision development is not therefore comparable to the appeal proposal but noting that a lack of 5 year housing land supply is relevant to that appeal and this appeal; c) Appeal Ref: APP/Y3940/W/23/3317252, dated 5 March 2024. This decision relates to an outline application for a self-build development of up to 26 dwellings on a site that adjoins the market town of Malmesbury. The scale of the development is significantly greater than the appeal proposal and it is stated that the site has good access to a wide range of services and facilities. The benefit associated with 26 self-build dwellings would be more than for a single self-build dwelling. This decision does not weigh in favour of the appeal; d) Appeal Ref: APP/Y3940/W/22/3303198, dated 6 December 2022, relates to development of a single dwelling in [name]. I do not have all the details that would have been before the inspector for consideration for this decision, but it is clear from the decision that the development is filling of a small gap within a village setting, no reference is made to development in open countryside. Consequently, this decision does not weigh in favour of the appeal; and e) Appeal Ref: APP/Y3940/W/24/3356285 dated 22 July 2024, relates to a single dwelling at [name]. Again, I do not have all the details that would have been before the inspector for consideration for this decision, but there is no reference to specific consideration of accessibility to services and facilities by walking, cycling and public transport. The inspector noted that a single dwelling would make a modest contribution to the local housing supply but afforded it great weight in the circumstances of that appeal. The benefits of that appeal included the enhancement of an existing listed building and its setting, improving the character and appearance of the area and a reduction of phosphates being discharged into the River Avon Special Area of Conservation. The overall benefits of the scheme that is the subject of this decision are not comparable to the appeal proposal. This decision does not weigh in favour of this appeal.

The Council also submitted a number of appeal decisions which I have considered but none are directly comparable with the proposed development and they do not weigh against the appeal.

In summary, the site is not a suitable location for the development, having regard to national and local planning policies including minimising travel demand. Consequently, allowing the development would undermine the Council’s spatial strategy and amount to harm to which I afford significant weight. The proposed development is in conflict with policies CP1, CP2, CP8, CP60 and CP61 of the [name] and H4 of the NWLP.

The appellants’ statement of case makes reference to the Wiltshire Local Plan Review. [name] 2026, the Inspectors hearing evidence at the Examination, wrote to the Council recommending that it either, withdraws the submitted document, or request that the Inspectors complete their report, which will recommend that the plan is not adopted. Very limited weight can therefore be afforded the review document.

The proposal would be a windfall site, which have historically contributed significantly to the supply of homes in Wiltshire, that would provide one new home. This would support the Government’s aim of significantly boosting the supply of homes, as amplified in the [name] made by the Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on the 30 July 2024, and improve the current shortfall in the Council’s housing land supply, which is significant. However, the benefit of a single dwelling on addressing the shortfall would be limited. There would also be temporary construction, and ongoing economic benefit from the residential element with occupants giving support to services and facilities in the area, but the benefit from a single dwelling would again be limited.

The proposed dwelling would be a self-build dwelling, and the Framework supports small sites coming forward for self-build homes. A Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted to secure that the dwelling would be self-build, and this has been accepted by the Council. The appellants assert that there is unmet local need for self-build homes in the area, and I have not seen evidence to suggest otherwise. Provision of a self-build home is a material consideration in favour of granting planning permission, but the benefit of one self-build home is limited.

Bremhill Parish Council support the development. They consider it to be in accordance with the Bremhill Parish Neighbourhood Plan, [name] 2018 (BPNP) and will provide a much needed home. While the appeal is in compliance with the general themes of the policies cited, none are particularly relevant to the location of the development within the parish and do not therefore pull against the locational points outlined above.

The appellants consider that the proposal would improve the appearance of the site by diverting cables underground. There are significant overhead cables in the area associated with the adjacent railway line that will remain and diverting the cables at the site would have limited benefit.

The site is not a suitable location for the development, having regard to national and local planning policies including minimising travel demand.

The Core Strategy was adopted in 2015 but the weight to be attached to development plan policies does not depend on its age. Rather the Framework makes it clear that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework.

Policies H4 of the NWLP, CP1, CP2, CP60 and CP61 of the [name], are consistent with policies in the Framework with regard to avoiding development of isolated homes in the countryside, managing patterns of growth, ensuring development offers a genuine choice of transport and prioritising sustainable transport modes that limit future car use. The conflict with these consistent policies carries substantial weight. There are no policies in the development plan which favour this development in this location. The proposal is therefore in conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council advises that it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, with a supply of 2.42 years. This shortfall is assessed to be significant in this instance. In these circumstances the Framework advises that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

For the reasons given above, the benefits associated with a single dwelling on increasing housing supply, providing economic benefits, delivery of a self-build dwelling and diverting cables underground are each limited. The Framework sets out that development should be directed to appropriate locations and the adverse impacts of allowing the development would 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 and the material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.