Appeal 6004192

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council described the development in its consultation and decision notice as “erection of one detached dwelling and a new crossover” and this differed from that on the application form by including reference to the crossover. Although there is no indication that the appellant agreed to this at the time, it is not disputed. Even so, I have used the description of development given on the application form in the banner heading above.

Additional information was provided with the appeal comprising an updated [name] (PEA) and a report confirming the delivery of [name] (BNG). The Council, in its statement, confirmed that this new information was sufficient in order to address its second and third reasons for refusal. Accordingly, I have not gone on to consider these issues, which are no longer in dispute, any further here.

As reasons 2 and 3 are no longer being pursued by the Council, the sole main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is set within the village of Eversholt. The village has a very distinctive layout being formed of “Ends” that comprise clusters of buildings along generally quite narrow lanes. [name] are each separated from one another by open parcels of land, typically in the form of one or two fields or paddocks of varying sizes. These open spaces between the clusters of buildings give the overall impression of a series of intimate but interconnected hamlets. This arrangement is one of the defining features of the village and the juxtaposition of the intimate arrangement of buildings in clusters with the open spaces between them is a particularly special characteristic.

The proposal would be to introduce a detached dwelling between [name] and [name] which, by comparison to the gaps between other Ends within the village, is relatively narrow. The site at present is largely undeveloped being formed of an open, grassed paddock surrounded by a low post and rail fence and hedge addressing the street frontage.

The construction of a detached home in this location would result in the introduction of built form that would cause a serious erosion of open space between [name] and [name]. This area of open space is an essential and important component to the character of the village overall and this proposal would be highly detrimental to it.

I recognise that this proposal is a resubmission of a previous scheme that was considered by the Council and subsequently dismissed at appeal1. This proposal has reduced the number of dwellings by one. However, the reduction in the number of units does not mean that there is less or no harm, or that such a proposal could be regarded as acceptable simply due to being a lesser number of dwellings and overall built form.

I accept that there is a large, detached home, [address], with outbuildings, opposing the appeal site. This house sits within the otherwise fairly open gap between Witts and [name]. However, the gaps between Ends within the wider village are rarely perfect and there remains space around this home. Whereas this proposal would extend the built form into an already narrow gap and would reduce it to a harmful degree.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would be highly detrimental to the character and appearance of the area contrary to policies EE5 and HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (CBLP) and provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). This is insofar as the proposal is not of the highest possible quality and does not respond positively to, nor take account of opportunities to enhance or reinforce, the local distinctiveness of the area.

In reaching my conclusions here, I have been mindful that the provisions of policy SP5 of the CBLP, relating to important gaps and preventing coalescence outside the Green Belt, does not apply here as it is not a defined gap. Even so, this does not alter my conclusions here as policies EE5 and HQ1 are quite clear in their applicability and intent here.

The Council accepts that it is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land. As such, the provisions of paragraph 11 d) of the Framework are engaged. Whilst the site is within the Green Belt it has previously been shown to be a form of development which is not inappropriate due to the provisions of paragraph 155. As such, footnote 7 of the Framework does not apply.

Paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework explains that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless 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. 1 Council ref: CB/24/03176/FULL, Inspectorate ref: APP/P0240/W/25/3362017

This proposal would be seriously detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and village as a whole. This is evidenced by my reasoning, the decision of the previous Inspector (albeit for a differing scheme) and the views of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and Parish Council. Accordingly, the provisions of paragraph 11 d) of the Framework do not apply as, notwithstanding the five year land supply position, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

I do not find this approach to depart from the cited case law2 as it remains open to the decision maker to balance the competing objectives of providing new housing with the environmental effects of this. [name] have set out, the proposal is harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and this is an important component in reaching any such balance.

The proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. It conflicts with the development plan, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is dismissed.