Appeal 6004707

The appeal is dismissed.

I have adopted the description of development from the appeal application form.

The application is made in outline form with all matters save for access reserved for future consideration. As such, I have treated the submitted plans depicting the layout as largely indicative in nature.

The main issue in the appeal is whether the proposal complies with the development plan in relation to access to services and minimising the need to travel by private vehicle.

The appeal site is located in [name] which is close to the village of Rattery, a modest distance to the north-east. Rattery has a nucleated centre, including a public house and place of worship. It has a concentration of dwellings around these facilities and the Village Hall is located a short distance to the south.

The appeal site is a part of the domestic curtilage associated with the host dwelling, Fairlight. A separate residential use of land appears to exist to the north, formed from a subdivision of the sizeable planning unit associated with Fairlight. The appeal site sits between the host dwelling and separate residential use of land. The main part of the site is occupied by a large blockwork building which the evidence indicates has existed since the early 1980s. It still appears to be in good, functional condition and is used for the storage of garden implements.

In terms of the applicable planning policies, the development plan for the area includes the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (JLP) 2014-2034 (adopted 2019). JLP policy SPT1 sets out an overarching strategy for development of the area and indicates that development will be planned for and managed to deliver sustainable economic, societal and environmental change, including through ensuring that neighbourhoods have a mix of local services and community assets and greenspace to meet their needs, as well as sustainable and health promoting transport options to enable access to local education, services and jobs.

JLP policy SPT2 sets out the principles of sustainable rural communities and sets out how the creation of communities should support the overall spatial strategy through the creation of neighbourhoods. The requirements include for communities to have reasonable access to a vibrant mixed use centre, which meets daily community needs for local services such as neighbourhood shops, health and wellbeing services and community facilities and where they are well served by public transport, walking and cycling opportunities.

JLP policy TTV1 sets out the principles for distribution of homes and jobs across a defined hierarchy of settlements which comprises four tiers. Sustainable villages form the third tier of the hierarchy and are where development intended to meet a locally identified need and to sustain limited services may be acceptable in principle. The lowest tier of the hierarchy is made up of the smaller villages, hamlets and the countryside where development is only likely to be permitted if it can be demonstrated to support the principles of sustainable development and communities as outlined in policies SPT1 and 2 and policies TTV26 and TTV27.

In the preamble to policy TTV1, Rattery is listed as a Sustainable Village. The JLP also apportions a housing growth allowance to the [name] in the latter stages of the plan period. The undisputed evidence of the appellant indicates that Rattery is intended to deliver up to around ten dwellings over the plan period but that as at the date of refusal of the appeal scheme, no dwellings have been built in the village.

Policy TTV26 (1) relates to isolated development in the countryside. The Council’s position is that the development is not isolated in this sense and I do not find reason to conclude otherwise.

Policy TTV26 (2) sets out that in order to protect the special characteristics and role of the countryside, where appropriate, development should meet a range of criteria, including those relating to protection of public rights of way; re-use of traditional buildings; avoiding prejudicial effects on agricultural operations; responding to a proven agricultural, forestry and other occupational need for a countryside location; avoiding Best and [name]; and helping to enhance the immediate setting of the site. The development does strictly engage any of the criteria of TTV26 (2), but of most relevance, does not seek to respond to a strict need for a countryside location.

Policy TTV27 relates to affordable housing, the benefits of which can, in some cases, outweigh the harm associated with developing in a location that is less than optimum in terms of its relationship with the existing built form and connectivity to services. However, the proposal has not been offered on the basis that it is an affordable dwelling to meet an identified local need and therefore is not applicable.

The proposal is promoted as a replacement of the studio building which does not have a lawful use for residential purposes in its own right. Its use is incidental to the host dwelling, Fairlight. Therefore, the proposal would introduce an additional residential dwelling to this location.

I accept that Rattery is defined as a Sustainable Village under the terms of the JLP and has an allocation for a small amount of housing growth. The built form of the sustainable villages is not defined in the JLP and there is no neighbourhood plan specific to Rattery to indicate the built limits of the village or where housing growth should or could occur.

However, on the ground, and despite signage that welcomes visitors to Rattery village on arrival at [name], the appeal site sits someway out of the built limits of the village. The built limits of the village appear to encompass the Village Hall to the south, the nucleated development in the centre around [address] and extends up to dwellings along [name] to the north. [address] Cross is a ribbon form of development, it does not extend along the length of the road towards the Village Hall. It is divorced from the main built form by a stretch of road which is typically rural and narrow, subject to the national speed limit and without footways or streetlighting. Whilst the character of the roads within Rattery itself are also rural without streetlights and footways for much of their length, the nucleated form of the village allows pedestrian movements between the facilities where driving speeds are limited to 20mph, influenced also by the presence of dwellings and buildings within a constrained street environment.

Given that residents in Rattery itself do not have access to public transport services from the village itself, they too are highly reliant on private vehicles. However, whereas residents located within the built form of Rattery could access its modest village facilities on foot, residents at the appeal site would not have an option to do so without endangering themselves or other highway users. This means that all journeys to and from the appeal site to enable residents to meet most of their day-to-day and social needs would be by vehicle. The creation of such a degree of dependency on the private vehicle would be in conflict with the aforementioned development plan policies when taken as a whole and would not align with the JLP’s promotion of sustainable growth for Rattery by means that would more directly grow the village and increase the use of its facilities. Whilst it may seem a marginal difference to allow development ‘within’ Rattery and not a modest distance outside of Rattery, the pattern of development that would result if these distinctions were repeatedly diminished would clearly be at odds with the well-considered spatial objectives of the development plan.

I have noted the description of development refers to the dwelling being ‘self-build’, presumably referring to the form of housing so defined under the Self-Build and [name] Regulations1. Whilst the Council has a duty to ensure that sufficient plots are consented to meet the needs for self-build dwellings, no detail has been provided to indicate whether this duty is being met or whether the proposal could count as a contribution to any shortage in plots. Furthermore, there has been no planning obligation offered to secure the dwelling as anything other than an open market dwelling with unrestricted occupation.

Taking all these aspects together, the nature and location of the development conflicts with JLP policies STP1, STP2, TTV1 and TTV26 with regard to access to services and minimising the need to travel, particularly by private vehicle. 1 Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016)

The Council indicate that it cannot demonstrate an adequate five year supply of housing land with associated buffer as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Council’s evidence indicates that the supply position is in the region of around 2.53 years, albeit from an unspecified base date and without any quantification of the extent of the shortfall in numbers of units. Nonetheless, I have adopted the position that the shortfall, at around half the required amount, should be considered substantial.

As the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing at the present time, the provisions of paragraph 11 d) of the Framework are engaged. This requires that in such circumstances, permission should be granted unless (i) any particular Framework policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusal, or (ii) any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole and having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes.

The scheme would deliver a single open market dwelling which would contribute to the substantial shortfall in housing land supply. It would also generate some economic benefits during the construction period. I attribute these benefits modest weight, commensurate with the modest scale of the scheme.

I have noted that the appellant has offered to include sustainable construction measures within the proposed dwelling which attracts limited weight in support of the development. I have also noted the absence of other technical objections in relation to highways, drainage, arboricultural impacts, neighbour and landscape effects which could not otherwise be addressed by way of condition and/or at reserved matters stage. The absence of other harms weighs is a neutral factor in the overall balance.

However, the adverse impacts would be a future household entirely reliant on private vehicle which would be at odds with the objectives of the development plan. Owing to their accordance with the Framework’s policies that direct development to sustainable locations, these policies still attract considerable weight. As such, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits. In the circumstances, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The development conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole. There are no other considerations that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.