Appeal 6004552

The appeal is dismissed.

The Planning Practice Guidance1 (PPG) advises that permission in principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second (technical details consent) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

No plans of the dwellings are required at permission in principle stage. Nevertheless, an illustrative site plan was submitted with the application to demonstrate how the site could be developed and I have considered this as indicative only.

The appellant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) with the appeal to seek to address the third reason for refusal. The Council considers that this information should have been submitted during the application process, and there was insufficient time to re-consult its [name]. The Planning Officer has therefore only made limited comments on this document. The Procedural Guide to Planning Appeals states that in general, appeals should be determined on the same basis as the original application and that the appellant’s submissions should not normally include new evidence or additional technical data not previously seen by the LPA and interested parties at the application stage. It states that this is especially so when an application has been refused in the absence of information 1 Permission in Principle. and that information is then supplied at the appeal stage. As the FRA is a technical document requiring specialist input to assess whether the location of the proposal is suitable, I consider that the procedural test is failed and I will not take this document into account.

The main issues are whether the location, proposed land use and the amount of development is suitable, having regard to: • Whether or not the appeal proposal would be in a suitable location having regard to the development strategy for the area; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area including designated heritage assets; and • Whether the proposal would comply with national planning policy which seeks to steer new development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding.

The appeal site has the appearance of a paddock which lies within the grounds of [address] between it and [site address] . To the northern side is a mixture of trees and ponds, and to the south is the driveway to [address] and open meadow beyond. Across [site address] is a more defined area of built development and this contrasts with the more scattered and fragmented pattern of built form on the other side of the road near to the appeal site.

The appeal site is outside the development framework for Longstanton and therefore for the purposes of planning policy is in the countryside. In these areas, planning policies generally require restraint and to limit development to that which needs to be in the countryside. Policy S/7 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018) (SCLP), amongst other things, seeks to ensure that the countryside is protected from gradual encroachment on the edges of settlements. Therefore, it only supports proposals outside development frameworks for specified uses which need to be in the countryside or where they are supported by other policies in the development plan. The proposed development does not appear to conform with any of the specified exceptions, as such, the proposal would be contrary to this policy.

Given the site’s proximity to the settlement edge and access to nearby services and facilities, it does not appear isolated in the context of paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). It also has the potential to support those local services and facilities in accordance with paragraph 83. Nevertheless, as I explain below, the appeal site is in a rural setting, is visually divorced from the main built-up area and the development would harm the rural and open character of the surrounding countryside and setting of the village.

Therefore, the proposal would not be in a suitable location having regard to the development strategy for the area. As such, the proposal would conflict with SCLP Policy S/7 and the Framework which seeks to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The appeal site lies within the Longstanton Conservation Area and I have had regard to my statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. The Council has also identified two listed buildings in the vicinity. In relation to both matters, the Framework advises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.

Although this is a permission in principle application, the Framework states that local planning authorities should require an application to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. Also, that the level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ significance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on that significance. Given the factors under consideration in this appeal, the application and appeal documentation have fallen short of fulfilling this requirement.

The Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal mentions that the area is an amalgamation of two historic, rural villages, each with a church, set within an agricultural landscape. It mentions that the agricultural character of the village survives due to the large areas of open space between the two churches and the agricultural buildings within the village. Also, that the vistas across open fields are characteristic of the village and are a vital part of its setting.

From my observations and the details available to me, I consider that the significance of the Conservation Area is mainly drawn from the predominantly rural character and range of traditional buildings that it contains, together with its use of materials, the pattern of development and the relationship of the buildings to the spaces around them. This includes the visual and functional connections between the buildings and the surrounding fields and wider countryside.

Although the appeal site lies within the grounds of [address], it forms part of a wide swathe of rural landscape comprising fields, hedges and trees which help define the character of the conservation area as well as the wider, rural landscape. Para.8.14 of the appraisal notes that the area to the south side of [site address] has natural hedge lines, large mature trees and attractive vistas across the open land to the southeast. It considers this area as very much a characteristic of the Conservation Area. I saw that the appeal site was an integral part of this rural area, as well as providing an attractive approach and landscape setting to [address], centred on an historic, thatched cottage. The appeal site could be viewed from the road as well as from the nearby public footpath across the adjoining meadow. As such it makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

[name] is [name] listed (Ref.1164323) and lies to the south of the appeal site. It is described in the listing as an early 19th century farmhouse dating to the 15th century and mentions its materials, form and architectural features. It also describes several former farm buildings which contribute to its significance. The description notes that part of the building may relate to an earlier manor house of considerable status, then being remodelled and used as a farm.

For the purpose of this appeal, the significance of this listed building derives mainly from its considerable age, historic fabric, architectural features and its historic function and association with past events. The glossary of the Framework states that the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from the asset’s physical presence but also from its setting. In relation to this appeal, the surrounding fields and rural landscape reinforce the function and origins of the farmstead. This wider rural context, which includes the appeal site lying to the north, contributes positively to the environment in which the Farmhouse is appreciated and experienced.

The Church of [name] is a [name] listed building (Ref.1127295) lying to the south west of the appeal site, across [site address] . The list description mentions that the Parish Church dates to the mid-14th century and describes its form, materials and architectural features, including its tower with spire above. The building’s significance, in this appeal, derives from its function, age, fabric and architectural features. Although it lies some distance from the appeal site and is partly screened by mature trees, the appeal site nevertheless helps contribute to the wider historic landscape setting of the church.

The proposal would see the introduction of built form where there is currently none and, irrespective of the ultimate siting, form or design of the dwelling, it would be viewed as an urbanising built structure within that undeveloped landscape. The dwelling and its associated domestic paraphernalia would also visibly connect built form through to [address], such that it would read as a linear finger of residential development extending into the countryside. Also, it would not be regarded as infill development and would harmfully alter the perception of [address] reading as an isolated, historic dwelling. The northern backdrop of large trees is likely to further draw attention to its presence. Irrespective of future landscaping, which may partly screen and soften the development to some extent, it could not mitigate the visual harm caused by a dwelling and domestic activity associated with it, especially during the winter months. It would be viewed and perceived from the road as well as viewed from the meadow and public footpath to the south. It would therefore appear as an unwelcome and unexpected intrusion into open landscape surrounding the settlement, disrupting the patterns of fields and land use.

The appellant comments that the formal driveway to [address] and gate pillars at the road are distinctly domestic in character and that the proposal would be viewed within the context to the existing domestic setting of the house and grounds. Also, it is suggested that under permitted development rights a tall fence could be erected alongside the boundary with the open meadow. However, I find that the appeal site, despite forming part of the grounds of the house, reads as part of the wider, rural landscape. Even if the site was more domestic in its appearance that would not justify a dwelling in this location and the domestic paraphernalia and activity associated with it. Nor am I convinced that erection of fencing would compel me to conclude any differently.

It therefore follows from the above that residential development in this location would be harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area. It would visibly erode the grain of the historic settlement and its relationship with its surrounding landscape as well as interconnected views across it. Also, the proposed dwelling would harm the way in which the listed buildings are appreciated and understood, eroding their significance. Therefore, the expectations of the Act would not be met.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. It goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of those assets, or from development within its setting, and any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification. In relation to all these assets, in the language of the Framework, I find a moderate level of ‘less than substantial’ harm. This commands considerable importance and weight and is not to be treated as a less than substantial objection to the proposal. The Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The development would provide one dwelling which would add to the overall stock and choice of residential dwellings and support the supply of homes. A boost to housing supply is an important Framework consideration in favour of the development. The proposal is also described as a custom/self-build dwelling and on this point the Framework recognises the need to provide housing for different groups of people including those wishing to commission and build their own homes. Related to this, the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act, means that local planning authorities are under a duty to grant enough permissions to meet demand for self and custom-built housing within their area. A self-build dwelling therefore has the potential to make a limited but important contribution to the housing mix especially as the Council acknowledges its significant shortfall in the delivery of self-build and custom build plots.

The Council expresses concern that it is not possible to secure the self-build at permission in principle stage as no conditions nor legal obligation are permitted. However, the PPG states that planning obligations may be agreed at the technical details consent stage, provided that the statutory tests are met2. It further advises that local planning authorities can inform applicants that a planning obligation may be required at the technical details stage, which is the case here. I am therefore satisfied that the description of development would restrict any subsequent technical details consent to custom and self-build housing, and that a planning obligation could be attached to a subsequent permission to secure this. For these reasons, I consider that the need for custom and self-build plots as well as boosting the supply of homes, should command a moderate degree of weight.

The appellant references several decisions within the district where the benefit of self-build housing has outweighed the conflict with the development plan in relation to some or all the matters under consideration in this appeal. However, having reviewed these decisions, it is apparent that each case has specific circumstances. In particular, it does not appear that any of these decisions involved a similar heritage context or degree of heritage harm. Nor, as I conclude later, were there comparable findings regarding flooding. It is also for me to attribute the level of weight to the harms and benefits. I have therefore determined this appeal on its merits and regarding the specifics of this case.

The dwelling would be within an established residential area and there would be some social and economic benefits during construction and occupation, and it 2 Paragraph 22 Ref.ID: 58-[phone] would contribute to the vitality of local services. Given the size of the development proposed, these public benefits would be modest in scale, and I attribute them limited weight.

Given the above, I conclude that the totality of the public benefits attracts moderate weight. However, this weight would be insufficient to outweigh the level of harm to the designated heritage assets, which collectively I consider to be significant and to which I attach great weight. As such, the proposal would not comply with the Framework. In addition, there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets. Furthermore, I have found harm to the character and appearance of the wider area. Consequently, the proposal would not comply with [name]/7, NH/2 and HQ/1 which, amongst other things, require development to conserve or enhance historic assets and their setting.

The Framework requires site-specific flood risk assessments in flood zone 1 for land subject to other sources of flooding where development would introduce a more vulnerable use. Dwellings are classed as ‘more vulnerable’ development. Alongside, SCLP Policy CC/9 requires, amongst other things, Site Specific Flood Risk Assessments for development proposals in flood zone 1 where evidence, in particular the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment or [name], indicates that there are records of historic flooding or other sources of flooding, and/or a need for more detailed analysis.

The evidence indicates that the appeal site lies in flood zone 1 and is identified as in an area of very low (over 1 in 1000) to high (1 in 30) surface water flood risk. The Council advise that the highest probability of surface water flooding is at the northwestern boundary which includes the site’s access, and along the northeastern boundary. No site-specific flood risk assessment was submitted with the application.

The appellant considers that the matter can be addressed at the technical details stage. However, based on the limited information before me and given the evidence indicating that that parts of the site including its access and egress appear to be affected by a high probability of surface water flooding, I must be satisfied that the principle of the site location is acceptable with regard to flooding. Therefore, in the absence of a site-specific flood risk assessment, I am not convinced that the appeal site can accommodate a dwelling as it has not been demonstrated that occupiers and users would remain safe from current and future surface water flood risk for the lifetime of the development and without increasing flooding elsewhere.

Therefore, I consider that the proposal would not comply with national planning policy which seeks to steer new development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding. It would conflict with the Framework and SCLP Policy CC/9 as described above.

I have already summarised above the public benefits, including one additional dwelling which is described as ‘self-build’, both important considerations. I have also acknowledged the support to the vitality of the community, including supporting local services and facilities, and the social and economic benefits.

However, the proposal would have a significantly harmful and permanent effect on designated heritage assets which should be attributed great weight. I have also found harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area. The development would also not be in an appropriate location and would be at risk of flooding. All these matters weigh heavily against the scheme.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Overall, the cumulative benefits of the proposed development, which include the matters I have highlighted above, are clearly worthwhile but nevertheless overall carry only a moderate degree of weight in favour of the scheme. However, these benefits would not be of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the harm and related policy conflicts that I have identified. Therefore, the scheme would not be in accordance with the development plan when considered as a whole.

For the avoidance of doubt, even had I accepted the Flood Risk Assessment and found that the location was acceptable in relation to this matter, this would have been a neutral matter neither weighing for or against the proposal.

The Planning Officer Report references a consultation from the Council’s Ecology Officer advising that no ecological information has been provided to support the application despite the site potentially containing a priority habitat. The officer comments that impacts relevant to priority habitats, and whether or not impacts can be avoided, are key to the principle of development and as such must be established prior to determination. However, as I am dismissing this appeal for other reasons it has not been necessary for me to pursue this matter.

For the above reasons, and having taken all other matters raised into account, there are no material considerations that indicate that the proposal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.