Appeal 6004221

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for residential development to provide No. 7 dwellings, vehicular access and associated landscaping, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00247/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The Government’s planning appeals procedural guidance1 advises that if an appeal is made, the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. However, in support of the appeal, several amended proposed plans have been provided. These include a block plan, an elevations and floor plan for the house on plot 4, and a section drawing, as well as updated project visuals. The amendments include changes to the car parking layout and to the design and form of the house on plot 4.

The proposed changes to the form and detailing of the house on plot 4 are substantial. Nevertheless, these changes relate to only one house within the scheme, and the other proposed alterations are minor in nature. Consequently, when taken together, the amendments would not amount to a substantial difference to the scheme. However, not all the changes are reflected in the non-amended plans, which leads to some uncertainty in what is being proposed. Moreover, I cannot be certain that all interested parties have been made aware of the proposed changes and had the opportunity to comment upon them. For these reasons, I have decided not to accept the amended plans, as to do so would introduce uncertainty and be unfair to interested parties. 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before March 2026

Following the refusal of the application, the Council has indicated that it no longer wishes to pursue its reason for refusal relating to BNG. In this case, the mandatory biodiversity gain condition would apply to the development subject of this appeal, and I agree with both main parties that the biodiversity gain objective would be capable of being met.

Close to the appeal site, but on the opposite side of [address], is [address]. Much of this hill is designated as a Scheduled Monument - [name]: a motte and bailey castle on [name] hill2 (the Scheduled Monument). This hill also forms part of the [name] listed Park and Garden at Montacute House3 (the Park and Garden). At the top of the hill is the [name] listed building known as the Tower on [name] Hill4 (the Listed Building). Therefore, in determining this appeal, I have exercised my statutory duties under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether the development would preserve the settings of the Listed Building, the Scheduled Monument and the Park and Garden.

The appeal site comprises a large part of a wider field enclosure that is adjacent to a cluster of mainly residential development in the settlement of Montacute. The site itself is currently laid to grass, and there is a tall tree/hedgeline between it and the adjacent road (the road) which connects the A3088 and [address].

The development would fill some of the gap between the nearby clusters of built development at Montacute and [name]. However, much of the tree/hedgeline between the site and the road is outside of the appeal site, and, apart from the short section that would need to be removed to facilitate the proposed site access, it would not be adversely affected by the proposed development. Consequently, and even at times when this tree/ hedgeline is not in leaf, it would continue to obscure views of much of the development for those travelling along the road. That being the case, and due to the presence of the open playing field beyond the tree/hedgeline on the opposite side of the road, the separate identity of the settlements at Montacute and [name] would be retained following the implementation of the appeal scheme.

The presence of existing houses and buildings close to the southern and eastern site boundaries, together with intervening low boundary walls, and/or post and wire/rail fencing, mean that the appeal site has a transitional edge of settlement character and appearance. The appeal scheme would introduce buildings and sizable areas of hardstanding across much of a currently ‘green’ and verdant field. This would undoubtedly change the character and the appearance of the appeal site. However, because the appeal site is located on the edge of a settlement and 2 Official list entry number 1008466 3 Official list entry number 1000468 4 Official list entry number 1057255 close to nearby built form, the amount and form of the development subject of this appeal, would not be discordant with or harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

Moreover, the various finished floor levels of the houses would broadly echo the gently sloping site, and the buildings would be loosely arranged around and face a central courtyard, access and parking area. This layout, together with the variation in the heights of the buildings; the fairly traditional exterior design detailing; and the use of locally distinctive exterior materials, means that the resultant development would share similarities and sit comfortably with vernacular farmsteads and many other buildings found within the wider area, as well as being an appropriate design response to the site characteristics. Therefore, and even though the development would be largely inwardly looking, it would not be an incongruous addition to the area, and it would accord with an objective of the National Design Guide to secure well designed places.

For these reasons, the development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would comply with policies EQ2 and EQ5 of the South Somerset District Council - South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) adopted March 2015 (the Local Plan). Collectively, and amongst other things, these policies require development to be of a high quality design that reinforces local distinctiveness and to enhance and/or maintain the character and local distinctiveness of the landscape, local identity and sense of place.

According to the official list entry for the Scheduled Monument, it may contain evidence of unexcavated Saxon development. However, the list entry also notes that it includes a good example of a Norman motte and bailey castle, which was recorded in the [name], and which potentially had a stone tower. It also records that Motte and bailey castles were usually constructed in strategic positions dominating their immediate locality. This typical characteristic is clearly found within this Scheduled Monument, which is a prominent feature in the local landscape and from which far-reaching views can be secured.

It is understood that The Park and Garden comprises formal gardens that, although laid out in the mid 19th century were based on an earlier late 16th century framework, together with areas of parkland with medieval and 16th century origins. The Park and Garden also includes [name] hill, and the evidence indicates that there has historically been a formal walk from other parts of the Park and Garden to access the top of this hill, where panoramic views could be secured.

The Listed Building, which comprises a well-preserved ham stone ashlar tower sits on top of [address]. It is understood that this tall circular plan structure dates from circa 1760, that it was built as a folly, and that it was subsequently used as a signal tower.

Consequently, and insofar as they relate to this appeal, the Park and Garden, the Listed Building and the Scheduled Monument (the designated heritage assets) derive considerable significance from their historic and architectural values, and, for the Scheduled Monument, its evidential value.

The generally attractive, far reaching largely rural settings of the designated heritage assets, which are punctuated by isolated developments and small village settlements, can still be readily understood from them. Moreover, the relative elevation of the designated heritage assets in relation to much of their wider settings, also enables them to be readily appreciated from much of this surrounding land. For these reasons, the designated heritage assets also derive much significance from their wide and largely rural landscape settings.

The appeal site comprises a very small part of the settings of the designated heritage assets. However, as an area of verdant undeveloped pasture within a fairly small gap between clusters of development, it makes a modest positive contribution to the settings of the designated heritage assets, and to their significance.

Because the relatively small appeal site is adjacent to a larger cluster of mainly residential development, and because only 7 houses are proposed, the development would represent a small expansion to an existing built-up area. Furthermore, from those parts of the designated heritage assets where the development would be visible, the separate identity of the clusters would still be clearly perceptible. This is because a meaningful gap would remain between them. That being the case, and because the external materials and scale of the proposed houses would not be incongruous with other development in the area, the appeal scheme would only have a modest urbanising effect on a very small part of the settings of the designated heritage assets.

Therefore, and even though the Scheduled Monument and the Park and Garden are heritage assets of the highest significance, the harm that would be caused to them, and to the Listed Building from development in their settings, would be to the lowest end of the scale of less than substantial. This is principally because the appeal site makes only a very small contribution to their significance as a whole and because most of their settings would be unaffected. It is also due to the modest scale and extent of the scheme.

Nevertheless, and albeit to a very small amount, the scheme would erode the contribution that the wider landscape settings make to the overall significance of the designated heritage assets. That being the case, the development would not preserve the settings of the Listed Building, the Scheduled Monument or the Park and Garden, and it would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act. Consequently, it would conflict with policy EQ3 of the Local Plan, which indicates that heritage assets will be conserved and where appropriate enhanced for their historic significance and important contribution to local distinctiveness, and which does not include a requirement for a public benefit test to be undertaken.

Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that where a development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. This balancing is undertaken as part of the planning balance below.

The main parties agree that the Council’s most recently calculated supply of deliverable housing sites in the former South Somerset District Council area is 2.22 years, and I have no reason to find otherwise. Consequently, and even if the housing delivery in Stoke sub Hamdon has exceeded the target set out in the Local Plan, the large shortfall in housing land supply within the wider area, means that substantial weight is attributed to the public benefits that would result from the delivery of an additional 7 sustainably located houses on the appeal site.

The scheme would also result in short-term economic benefits during construction, and the subsequent occupation of the houses is likely to result in longer-term economic and social benefits to the local economy and community. Environmental benefits would also result from the delivery of measures to secure biodiversity net gain. However, the modest scale of the scheme means little weight can be attributed to each of these public benefits.

Conversely, and for the reasons previously given, the scheme would cause harm to the significance of the Listed Building, the Scheduled Monument, and the Park and Garden designated heritage assets. Hence, and notwithstanding the very small amount of harm that would be caused to each designated heritage asset, these harms each carry considerable importance and weight.

Therefore, because Local Plan policy EQ3 - which relates to heritage assets, is one of the most important development plan policies in the determination of this appeal, and because the scheme would conflict with this policy, it would conflict with development plan as a whole.

As the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, paragraph 11.d of the Framework is engaged. This indicates that permission should be granted unless the circumstances at 11. d) i. or 11. d) ii would apply.

Turning first to 11. d) i. In this case, the level of harm that would be caused to the significance of each of the designated heritage assets has been identified as being to the lowest end of the scale of less than substantial. However, and in accordance with paragraph 212 of the Framework, I give great weight to the conservation of these designated heritage assets. That being so, the harm that would be caused to the designated heritage assets is attributed considerable importance and weight. Nevertheless, the previously identified public benefits must all be weighed against these harms. That being the so, and because of the weight previously attributed to these public benefits, the public benefits of the scheme would outweigh the less than substantial harm that would be caused to each of the designated heritage assets. This provides a clear and convincing justification for the harm. Consequently, the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas of particular importance – which include designated heritage assets, do not provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

Moving on to 11(d) ii. Although the proposal would be contrary to the part of the Framework that states that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led, this conflict attracts only a small amount of weight. This is partly because the development strategy within the development plan is not providing sufficient housing. It is also because the lack of a requirement in Local Plan policy EQ3 to undertake a public benefit test where less than substantial harm would be caused to designated heritage assets, is inconsistent with paragraph 215 of the Framework.

For the reasons previously given, the scheme would accord with those parts of the Framework that relate to the protection of the historic environment. Albeit, this is a neutral consideration.

The proposal aligns with the parts of the Framework that seek to significantly boost the supply of homes, and it accords with the part of Framework paragraph 73 where it is indicated that small and medium-sized sites can make an important contribution towards meeting the housing requirement of an area. Because of the size of the housing land supply shortfall in the area, these considerations attract significant weight.

In addition, the development would accord with those parts of the Framework that seek to build a strong competitive economy, enhance the natural environment and to ensure that housing is located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. However, given the modest scale of the scheme, each of these considerations attract a small amount of weight.

Therefore, in this case, the adverse impacts of granting the permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole.

Consequently, and notwithstanding the identified conflict with the development plan, material considerations indicate that planning permission should be granted.

No objection has been raised to the development by the Highway Authority, and adequate provision would be made for on-site car parking. Furthermore, based on my own observations on-site, I am satisfied that subject to the imposition of conditions related to parking, surfacing of the access road, and junction design, then no harm would be caused to highway safety.

Although no badger setts were found to be present within or close to the site that would necessitate a licence to undertake the scheme, evidence of fresh badger foraging and latrining was found during the walkover survey that was undertaken to inform the ecological impact assessment (EIA) by encompass - dated January

This assessment also indicates that bats have been found to use the site for foraging purposes, but that dormice are most likely to be absent from the site. That being the case, and subject to suitable measures being identified and implemented as part of a lighting strategy and a biodiversity strategy and method statement, any adverse impacts on protected species from the development would be minimised, adequately mitigated, and/or compensated. This could be secured by condition/s.

No compelling evidence has been provided from which to conclude that local services, facilities and infrastructure would be unable to cope with the additional demand that would result from the occupation of the dwellings.

Each scheme is considered on its own merits, and the exact circumstances of this case are unlikely to be replicated elsewhere. Consequently, the allowance of this appeal would not set a precedent for other similar schemes in the nearby area.

While it is unfortunate that no affordable housing would be provided as part of the scheme, any policy or legislative requirement for such provision has not been demonstrated. Therefore, I cannot conclude that such provision is necessary.

The separation distance between the proposed houses and the existing dwellings and gardens on [address] is sufficient to prevent any harmful reduction in outlook or light for the occupiers of these existing properties.

The Montacute Conservation Area (the CA), together with a large collection of not previously cited Listed Buildings within the CA, are fairly close to the site. These designated heritage assets undoubtedly have architectural and historic interest, and many have collective group value/s that contribute to their significance. However, the distance between them and the appeal site, and the presence of intervening structures and development, mean that the settings of these designated heritage assets would be preserved following the implementation of the appeal scheme, and their significance would not therefore be eroded.

The site is within the hydrological catchment area of the Somerset levels and moors Ramsar site (the Ramsar site). This habitat site is designated for its internationally important wetland features - including the floristic and invertebrate diversity and species of its ditches, and it is afforded protection under the Habitat Regulations.

In summary, Natural England has advised that the conservation objectives of this Ramsar site are to ensure that its integrity is maintained or restored as appropriate, and to ensure that the site contributes to achieving the wise use of wetlands across the UK.

It is understood that the Ramsar site is in an unfavourable condition, resulting from eutrophication caused by excessive phosphates. Moreover, increased phosphate loading to the Ramsar site via waste waters from additional residential units within its catchment provides a potential pathway for adverse effects on the integrity of this protected site. As the appeal site is within the zone of influence of the Ramsar site, and because the scheme includes additional dwellings, there is a pathway to adverse effect from the development on the integrity of the Ramsar site. Therefore, without suitable mitigation, and both alone and in combination with other developments within the zone of influence of the Ramsar site, a likely significant effect on its internationally important features cannot be ruled out.

In these circumstances, and where development would otherwise be acceptable, the Habitat Regulations require the competent authority to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) in relation to the likely significant effect of the development on the integrity of the Ramsar site. In undertaking this AA, I have considered the consultation response from Natural England, as well as the related evidence and supporting documentation provided by both main parties.

Foul waters arising from the 7 houses would be disposed of via mains drainage to a waste water treatment works. However, it is understood that the normal treatment of such waters would not remove all the phosphates, and that these would subsequently drain into the catchments of the river Parrett and the Ramsar site. That being the case, and without mitigation, the use of the appeal scheme would increase phosphates in the Ramsar site. Such development would conflict with its conservation objectives and lead to an adverse effect on its integrity.

However, the Council has identified a series of nutrient neutrality measures designed to mitigate adverse effects on the Ramsar site arising from increased residential dwellings within its hydrological catchment. One of these measures is via the delivery of phosphate credit schemes, whereby an appropriate number of credits can be purchased towards the delivery and ongoing operation of a phosphate management scheme to mitigate any phosphate increase from developments. Moreover, Natural England has agreed the nutrient budget for the proposed scheme and the appellants approach to delivering phosphorus mitigation. I can therefore conclude, with a necessary degree of certainty, that the purchase of 0.67 P-credits from the [address] P-Credit scheme - as set out in the shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment, and which have already been reserved, would mitigate the increase in phosphates from the development. That being the case, an adverse effect on the integrity of the Ramsar site would be prevented.

Some of the conditions suggested by the appellant have been consolidated, and the wording of conditions has been amended where appropriate. This is for clarity and to meet the 6 tests within paragraph 57 of the Framework.

A condition specifying the time-period for the implementation of the permission is imposed. For certainty, a condition is also added specifying the plans to which the permission relates.

A condition requiring the Council’s approval of the external materials is also added. This is to protect the character and appearance of the area and to minimise the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets.

Conditions related to ecology, hedgerow/tree retention, phosphates and water efficiency are imposed to prevent unacceptable harm to the environment, the character and appearance of the area, and to protected sites and species. The water efficiency condition is necessary because it requires compliance with an otherwise optional requirement for water efficiency. The ecology and the phosphate conditions need to be pre-commencement conditions. This is to provide certainty that the development would not harm the integrity of the Ramsar site, and because site clearance works in preparation for the development would otherwise have the potential to cause harm to biodiversity.

A pre-commencement construction method statement condition is needed to prevent site clearance, preparation and construction works from causing harm to highway safety and to the living conditions of nearby occupiers.

Also, to prevent harm being caused to highway safety, conditions are imposed regarding the detailing of the site junction with the highway and the design and surfacing of roads and drives within the site. For the same reason, there is a need to secure the provision and retention of suitable visibility splays at the site access onto the highway via a condition, as well as the parking and manoeuvring space within the site. The junction design condition is required to be a pre-commencement condition, to protect highway safety while the development is undertaken.

Conditions requiring the provision and implementation of foul and surface water drainage strategies are also necessary. This is to prevent an increase in flood risk, harm to human health and environmental pollution, and to protect highway safety and the integrity of habitat sites. The foul water drainage condition needs to be a ‘Grampian’ style condition, because connecting to the existing mains foul water drainage system requires the use of third-party land. Because the drainage works are likely to influence how the rest of the development is delivered, these conditions need to be commencement conditions.

There is no need to impose conditions on the permission to secure the provision of the biodiversity gain plan, a habitat management and monitoring plan, or the provision of electric vehicle charging points. This is because such conditions would duplicate the purpose of the mandatory biodiversity gain condition and echo the building regulations in respect of EV charging points.

There is also no need for separate conditions related to hours of operations during the site clearance and construction works, or requiring a walkover badger survey and specific biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures. This is because these details can be secured as part of the the biodiversity strategy and method statement condition and the construction method statement condition – which is required to protect highway safety and the living conditions of occupiers of nearby dwellings.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, this appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s: 1920/001 rev C, 1920/002 rev E, 1920/005 rev B, 1920/008 rev B, 1920/009 rev B, 1920/030 rev A, 1920/031 rev A – plot 2, 1920/031 rev A – plot 3, 1920/034 rev A – plot 4, 1920/034 rev A – plot 5, 1920/035 rev B, 1920/036 rev B, 1920/050 rev A, and 1920/051.

No development shall take place until details of the design, surfacing and construction of; the junction between the highway and the site access; the onsite access road; and the car parking areas within the site, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and each dwelling shall not be occupied until the junction and on-site access road have been completed, and the car parking serving that dwelling has been provided. Thereafter, the junction, the on-site access road and the parking areas shall be retained for access and parking purposes only.

No development shall take place until an [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which addresses the additional nutrient input arising from the development within the fluvial catchment area upstream of the [name] and Moors Ramsar site and on the same hydrological pathway. The Allocation Certificate shall be a written certificate issued by the phosphate credit provider confirming the allocation of the full phosphate credit requirement generated by the development.

No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall: i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and, iii) provide, a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The sustainable drainage system shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan.

No development shall take place until a foul water drainage strategy showing how foul water arising from the development would be disposed of to the mains sewage network, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, no dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until the approved foul water drainage scheme has been completed and connected to the mains sewage network.

No development shall take place, and no site clearance in preparation for the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken, until a [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Statement shall provide for: i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; v) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; vi) delivery, demolition and construction working hours. The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

No development shall take place, and no site clearance in preparation for the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken, prior to a biodiversity strategy and method statement being submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This strategy and method statement should be based on the recommendations and mitigation measures identified in section 5 of the Ecological Impact Assessment by encompass dated January 2025, and the recommendations at paragraph 8.6 of the Tree Survey &

The strategy and method statement should also include an implementation programme/timetable and a management plan. The development shall subsequently be undertaken and maintained in accordance with the approved strategy and method statement.

No development above ground level shall take place until details and colours of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until a scheme for the provision of sheltered and secure bicycle storage for each dwelling, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, each dwelling shall not be occupied until bike storage has been provided for it, in accordance with the approved details. Subsequently, the bicycle storage areas shall be retained for bicycle storage purposes.

Prior to the installation of external lighting other than in private gardens, full details including the height, design, location and intensity of proposed lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any external lighting other than in private gardens, shall then be installed and retained in accordance with the approved details.

If any retained tree or hedgerow is cut down, uprooted, destroyed or dies within five years of the first occupation of the 7th dwelling on the site, another tree or hedgerow of the same/similar species/species mix shall be planted at the same place, in the following planting season. In this condition "retained tree or hedgerow" means an existing tree or hedgerow which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars.

No dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until visibility splays have been provided from a point of 1.05m above the carriageway level at the centre of the vehicular access to the site and 2.4m back from the near side edge of the carriageway (measured perpendicularly), for a distance of 160m in each direction to the near side edges of the carriageway. Thereafter, nothing shall be planted, erected and/or allowed to grow on the area of land so formed, which would obstruct the visibility described above.

Each dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the optional requirement for water consumption (110 litres use per person per day) in [name] of the Building Regulations has been complied with and evidence of compliance has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the measures to ensure this level of water consumption is not exceeded should be retained for the life of the development. End of conditions.