Appeal 6004753

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal, with access, appearance, layout and scale to be considered at this stage, with the outstanding matter of landscaping reserved for future consideration. I have considered the appeal accordingly.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site would be a suitable location for the proposed development, with regards to development plan policy; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of [site address] , with regards to outlook.

The appeal site is located to the North-East of the settlement of [site address] . The site forms part of the garden of a residential property known as [site address] which is part of a small cluster of 3 dwellings on the eastern side of [site address] . These 3 dwellings are physically separated from [site address] by a field although there is a modern residential development on the opposite side of [site address] , known as Hursley Park. [site address] is a hedge lined rural lane with a grass verge on one side. There is no pedestrian path or street lighting.

Policy GD2 of the Harborough Local Plan 2019 (HLP) sets out 6 criteria where development adjoining the existing or committed built up area of [name], [name], the Leicester Principal Urban Area, [name] and [name] will be permitted. Most relevant to this case is criterion e) which states that new residential development needs to be physically and visually connected to and respect the form and character of the existing settlement and landscape. [site address] is listed as a ‘Selected Rural Village’ within Policy SS1 of the HLP.

Policy H2 of [site address] ’s Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2031 (GBNP) limits development to within the boundary of the settlement which is defined in figure 2. The appeal site is located outside the settlement but is in relatively close proximity to the boundary. The red line defining the limits of development in figure 2 extends up the western edge of [site address] , almost as far as [site address] . This means the appeal site and the adjoining 3 residential dwellings located on the eastern side of [site address] fall outside of the defined boundary. Importantly there is a field between the existing [site address] properties and the more clearly defined settlement of [site address] to the south. Despite the relative proximity of the settlement, the lane still maintains a very rural appearance with high hedgerows and trees present. Furthermore, there are only very limited views from the appeal site of built form within the settlement boundary, which amounts to a very restricted view of a couple of rooftops within the Hursley Park development. Consequently, the site is not visually or physically connected to the settlement boundary.

Given that the proposal is contrary to GD2, it is necessary to consider whether the scheme accords with Policy GD4 which considers new housing in the countryside. The policy lists 6 criteria (a-f) where new housing in the countryside could be permitted. However, there is no substantive evidence before me that demonstrates that the proposal would meet any of the criteria.

I conclude that the appeal site would not be a suitable location for the proposed development, with regard to development plan policy. The development is contrary to Policies GD2 and GD4 of the HLP and Policy H2 of the GBNP which amongst other matters seek to restrict residential development to within or adjacent to existing settlements.

The appeal site is located adjacent to three properties grouped together on the east side of [site address] . The closest property is [site address] which is a converted agricultural building constructed in red brick which appears to maintain many of its original openings and is positioned side-on to the road. Adjacent to [site address] is a large traditional red brick property with grey tiled roof. The third property is a notably smaller modern property that appears as single storey on the front but due to the steep roof provides first floor accommodation on the rear. This is also a red brick property with a grey tiled roof.

The sub-division of the garden of [site address] is required to accommodate the proposed bungalow. The existing access would be utilised for the new dwelling meaning that the existing hedgerow along the site frontage would be retained. The bungalow would be primarily constructed of red brick but includes sections of render. The hipped roof would be constructed in tiles to match [site address] . The front elevation would incorporate a full height window surrounded by render, a smaller hallway window adjacent to the front door and the side elevation of the attached garage which is constructed of red brick and would contain no windows.

The front set garage fails to address the street and provides an uninspiring blank elevation onto the lane. The full height window is a very modern addition that does not reflect the traditional rural appearance of the adjoining properties. Furthermore, the use of render is not characteristic of the adjacent properties on the eastern side of [site address] . Whilst the existing hedgerow provides some screening, the proposed bungalow with its substantial footprint would be visible along the lane throughout the year, especially during autumn and winter. The combination of these features would result in an incoherent and obtrusive outcome that would have an urbanising effect on this rural setting. Consequently, the proposed dwelling would sit uncomfortably next to the adjacent traditional properties.

There are some white rendered bungalows located within the nearby new residential development, namely [address] (evens). However, these bungalows are located within the heart of a modern residential development that has a suburban appearance. In comparison the appeal site is located in a notably different setting on a rural lane next to a converted rural building.

The appellant has highlighted that the Council has granted consent for a new dwelling within the Conservation Area. However, I have not been presented with sufficient details, such as plans and planning permissions, to make a suitable comparison. As such, I cannot be certain that the circumstances are similar to the appeal proposal before me. In any event, each proposal should be considered on its individual merits and with appropriate regard to the development plan and any material considerations.

I conclude that the proposal materially harms the character and appearance of the area. The development is contrary to Policy GD8 of the HLP and Policy H6 of the GBNP. Amongst other matters, these policies set out development will be permitted where it achieves a high standard of design by respecting and enhancing both the local character and distinctiveness of the settlement concerned.

The proposed bungalow would be sited in close proximity to [site address] . [site address] has windows at ground and first floor level on the elevation that would provide an outlook towards the blank side elevation of the proposed bungalow.

The Development Management SPD (December 2021) indicates that there should be a distance of 14m between habitable room windows and the blank elevation of another dwelling. In this instance the distance is approximately half of this suggested figure. However, the separation distance referenced in the SPD relates to two storey development. Given the single storey nature of the bungalow and hipped roof design I am satisfied that the bungalow would not appear unduly overbearing or obtrusive when viewed from within [site address] .

I conclude that the proposal would have no adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [site address] , with regards to outlook. The proposal therefore accords with criteria e) of Policy GD8 of the HLP and Policy H6 of the GBNP. These policies state that amongst other matters, development should be designed to avoid having a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of existing and new residents through loss of privacy, overshadowing and overbearing impact.

The appellant has placed great weight on earlier approvals within the curtilage of [site address] , which were for a house extension and the construction of a detached garage with habitable accommodation. Both applications were for householder development which is materially different to the proposed plot subdivision to create a self-contained dwelling. Furthermore, the approved garage had a much smaller footprint and given its wooden clad appearance would appear much more sympathetic to its rural setting. The potential implementation of the garage consent is not a fallback position that I can attach any meaningful weight to as it would have a less harmful effect on character and appearance of the area than the

Reference has been made to [address] which is in close proximity to the appeal site on [site address] . However, this is a converted garage rather than a new build dwelling. Consequently, [address] is not directly comparable to the appeal scheme.

The appeal site is located near to the [site address] Conservation Area. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires great weight to be given to the conservation of heritage assets. Given that there are 3 dwellings located between the appeal proposal and the Conservation Area I am satisfied that the proposal would have no impact on the setting of the Conservation Area, especially as the appeal proposal is single storey.

There is an unmet local need for self-build housing (SBH). Accordingly, the provision of 1 such unit is an important benefit that attracts weight in the overall balance. However, I have no mechanism before me, for example a Section 106 agreement, by which this could be secured. In the absence of a mechanism to secure the status of the development as self-build this limits the weight that can be attributed to the delivery of SBH. Moreover, I cannot be certain that the development would be exempt from the mandatory BNG requirements. However, as this latter issue is unlikely to be determinative given my other findings, I have not pursued the matter further with the parties.

There is no dispute that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate at least a 5 year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites that the Framework requires. The Council indicates that it is able to demonstrate a 3.1 years supply, which is substantially below the required level of five years. Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework applies which aligns with the approach set out in footnote 8. There is nothing before me to suggest that there are strong reasons to refuse the development as outlined in paragraph 11 d) i). Accordingly, paragraph 11d) ii) is engaged.

This stipulates that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, 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, individually or in combination. Footnote 9 of the Framework sets out the specific policies referred to in paragraph 11 d) ii). These include paragraphs 110, 135 and 139 of the Framework which seek to secure high quality design and development in sustainable locations.

The proposal would deliver one additional house, making efficient use of land and contributing to housing supply where there is unmet need whilst supporting the Framework’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Moreover, the proposal seeks to provide SBH where there is a particular local shortfall. The development would also provide economic benefits during both the construction phase and in future occupation. However, given the proposal is for just one dwelling, the benefits would be modest in extent.

The appellant also identifies sustainability benefits arising from the location in terms making productive use of land in a sustainable location. However, I have identified that the location outside of a defined settlement is unsuitable for residential development.

Furthermore, I have found the proposal would materially harm the character and appearance of the area and is in an unsuitable location for residential development. These are major shortcomings of the appeal scheme, and I attach significant weight to this harm.

Taking all matters into account, the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.