Appeal 6004482

The appeal is dismissed.

The development was described on the application form as “Erection of two bungalows with associated works in connection with land adjacent to Waverlea, [site address] , Woodchurch, Ashford, Kent [postcode] .” The decision notice, however, refers to the proposal as “Outline application for 2 no. bungalow dwellings with associated works with all matters reserved.” I have not been provided with evidence that this revised description was agreed between the main parties prior to the determination of the application. Nevertheless, I note that the appellant has adopted the revised description on the appeal form, and in any event, it more accurately reflects the nature of the proposal. As the revised wording does not materially alter the development and its use would not prejudice any party, I have proceeded on the basis of the revised description.

The appeal proposal is in outline with all matters reserved. The appeal is supported by illustrate plans I have considered these as illustrative only and have determined the appeal on this basis.

The Council did not submit a Statement of Case within the statutory timeframe. However, I have been provided with an “Officer’s Assessment Sheet” (OAS), which appears to serve the function of a delegated report and sets out the Council’s position. I have also received the Council’s response to the additional ecological information submitted by the appellant with their appeal, which I address below.

In response to the second reason for refusal, the appellant has submitted a Great Crested Newt District Level Licensing Impact Assessment and a Conservation Payment Certificate as part of the appeal. Following receipt of the additional information the Council has confirmed that they no longer wish to defend this reason for refusal.

The OAS refers to the appeal site as being over 2 kilometres (km)to the north‐east of Woodchurch. This is incorrect. The site lies to the west of Woodchurch. The appellant submits that the distance from the appeal site to the edge of the settlement is approximately 750 metres (m). Having visited the site and walked into Woodchurch, the appellant’s figure appears to me to be a more accurate reflection of the actual distance.

The main issues are • Whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed development, having regard to local and national policies, and • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located outside of the settlement of Woodchurch. Policy HOU5 Residential Windfall Development in the Countryside in the Ashford Borough Local Plan 2030 (the LP) allows for residential development adjoining or close to the existing built-up confines of a number of settlements, including Woodchurch, the policy recognises that, in certain circumstances, housing outside settlement boundaries may make a positive contribution to meeting housing needs across the borough.

Acceptability under Policy HOU5 is subject to a number of criteria, including, insofar as relevant to this appeal, that the site is within easy walking distance of basic day‐to‐day services in the nearest settlement and/or has access to sustainable methods of transport to access a range of services; and the development is located where it is possible to maximise the use of public transport, cycling and walking to access services.

The justification text to Policy HOU5 highlights that although some reliance on the private car is inevitable in rural locations, the availability of good public transport links, cycling and walking routes can help to reduce that reliance and enable better accessibility to services that may only be available in higher‐order rural settlements or Ashford itself. It goes on to say that basic day‐to‐day services such as a grocery shop, public house, play/community facilities and a primary school should be within a generally accepted easy walking distance of 800m in order to be considered sustainable, although the specific local context may mean a higher or lower distance would be a more appropriate guide.

The appeal site is located approximately 750m from the edge of the settlement boundary, with the first of the basic day-to-day services, the local primary school being approximately 900m from the site, with further facilities such as the public house and village shop further again. Access to the bus stop is approximately 1km from the appeal site.

While the route from the appeal site to the settlement is relatively flat, making cycling a viable option, although acknowledging that not everyone can or will cycle, there is no footway or other segregation from the highway for the majority of the walk, and there is no street lighting. In addition, the road, for a significant portion of the route is subject to the national speed limit.

These factors significantly diminish the attractiveness and practicality of walking as a means of accessing day-to-day services within Woodchurch, particularly during hours of darkness, in inclement weather, or for those with mobility impairments, and for parents or guardians with buggies. While it is acknowledged and accepted that some reliance on the private car is expected in rural locations, Policy HOU5 requires that development is located in easy walking distance of day-to-day services, and where opportunities to maximise walking, cycling and the use of public transport are available.

In this case, the absence of a segregated pedestrian route, the lack of lighting, and the speed and nature of the road environment collectively limit the extent to which future occupiers could reasonably be expected to access services by sustainable modes.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of decisions issued by the Council1 in which, they contend, the Council has accepted that sites in the vicinity of the appeal site are sustainably located.

However, I have not been provided the full details of these appeals, and notwithstanding they pre-date the adoption of the LP. Moreover, although in 2 of the 3 cases cited, the Council refers to compliance with Policy HOU5 of the emerging plan, there is no substantive assessment within those decisions of the sustainability of the locations concerned. In particular, there is no analysis of access to basic day-to-day services by foot or bicycle, nor of the availability of active and sustainable transport options to reach a wider range of facilities. There is also no confirmation of the precise wording of the policy at that time, or whether it was subsequently modified prior to adoption. Accordingly, these decisions carry limited weight in my assessment.

[name] recognise that some journeys will invariably be made by private car irrespective of distance, Policy HOU5, so far as relevant and consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), is directed towards ensuring that development is planned so as to maximise opportunities for safe and suitable access to day‐to‐day services by active and other sustainable modes of transport.

The Council, in its reason for refusal, contends that the proposal would amount to an isolated dwelling in the countryside. Although the appeal site lies outside the defined settlement boundary, it nonetheless forms part of a continuous frontage of built development. In these circumstances, I find that the proposal would not constitute an isolated dwelling in the countryside in the sense envisaged by the Framework.

Accordingly, I conclude that the site does not represent a suitable location for development, having regard to Local Plan Policies SP1, SP2, SP6 and HOU5 which, insofar as they are relevant, seek to focus development in accessible and sustainable locations, maximise opportunities for sustainable and active methods of travel, and reduce reliance on the private motor vehicle. 1 [address] (16/01781/AS) 2017, [name] (17/01705/AS) 2018, [address], (18/0342/AS) 2018,

The appeal site comprises an open and undeveloped parcel of land between 2 properties. The appeal site is located to the north of [address], with land either side of it exhibiting different characteristics, land to the north comprises pockets of residential development of varying architecture and style, and land to the south comprising open largely undeveloped fields.

The land is enclosed on 3 sides by established hedgerows, with a fence enclosing the rear boundary.

The site lies within the [name] Area. The Landscape Character SPD 2011 describes this area as an undulating landscape comprising mixed farmland with limited intensive land use. A strong sense of enclosure is created by mixed woodlands and native hedgerows, with woodland blocks often interlinked across roads and between areas of open farmland, forming a coherent framework within which the farmland is set.

The site as a relatively small parcel of undeveloped land enclosed on 3 sides by established hedgerows, with a fence enclosing the rear boundary makes a neutral contribution to the overall character and appearance of the area.

Having regard to the neutral contribution the site currently makes to the character and appearance of the area, and noting that matters of access, scale, layout, appearance, and landscaping are reserved for future consideration, I am satisfied that the site could accommodate two dwellings in a manner capable of being assimilated into the surrounding landscape. On this basis, I find that such development need not result in harm to the character and appearance of the countryside or to the visual amenity of the locality.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would be in accordance with policies SP1, SP2, SP6 HOU5, and ENV3a. Which, insofar as relevant, seek to ensure that development conserves and enhances the borough’s natural environment and landscapes; sits sympathetically within the wider landscape; and responds appropriately to environmental sensitivity, landform, local character, distinctiveness and sense of place.

The appellant has highlighted the constraints currently affecting housing delivery within parts of the borough as a consequence of nutrient neutrality requirements. They contend that this creates an imperative to deliver housing elsewhere within the borough. However, I have not been provided with any detailed evidence regarding the extent to which these constraints are impacting overall housing delivery, nor any information on whether mitigation measures are being developed by the Council in conjunction with Natural England. In the absence of such evidence, this consideration attracts only limited weight.

It is common ground between the main parties that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land (5YHS). The appellant contends that the supply stands at 3.27 years, while the Council submits it is able to demonstrate 3.5 years. Both figures are significantly below 5 years.

In these circumstances, paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), and the associated presumption in favour of sustainable development, is engaged.

The proposal would deliver 2 dwellings; this would make a small but meaningful contribution to the Council’s housing supply and attracts significant weight. The development would also generate moderate economic benefits, both during the construction phase and through subsequent household expenditure, a benefit of moderate weight.

However, I have found harm arising from the site’s location, specifically its inaccessibility to basic day-to-day services by sustainable and active methods of transport, and its failure to maximise opportunities to utilise non-car modes of travel. This is a disbenefit of substantial weight.

These adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

The proposal would deliver 2 dwellings and would generate associated economic benefits, both of which attract significant weight in the overall planning balance. I have also found that the development would not harm the character and appearance of the area, a consideration of neutral weight. However, the development would not be in a sustainable location and future occupants of dwelling would be reliant on the private car as a result of the limited opportunities to access basic day-to-day facilities by sustainable and active methods of transport, overall resulting in a proposal that would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole, and no material considerations, including the Framework, indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it.