Appeal 6004836

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the construction of one self-build dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02501/FUL and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name], [name] against the decision of Northumberland County Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The Council changed the description of development from that stated on the application form in the interests of clarity. I have revised the amended description to include self-build to accurately describe the appeal scheme.

The main issue in this appeal is whether there is justification for the proposed dwelling.

The appeal site slopes east to west, located within a cluster of properties northwest of the service village of [site address] . The appeal site is outside the settlement boundary of [site address] .

The Council contend that the appeal site is within the open countryside. The Northumberland Local Plan 2016-2036 (2022) (the Local Plan) defines open countryside as: • Land beyond settlement boundaries or Green Belt inset boundaries, where they are defined on the Local Plan policies map or neighbourhood plan policies maps, • Land not within, or immediately adjacent to the built up form of [name], [name], [name] or [name] and land that is not within the built form of other settlements, where boundaries are not defined.

Spatially, the appeal site lies outside any defined settlement boundary and is not immediately adjacent to the nearby Service Village of [site address] . However, the cluster of properties observed during my site visit displays the characteristics of a small hamlet. The properties exhibit a clear and cohesive pattern of development, predominantly fronting the access road leading from the A68, and together form a closely related group of dwellings that is readily perceived as a single built-up grouping. The Local Plan provides no definition of ‘other settlements’. Whilst the Council maintains that the site should be regarded as being within the open countryside, I find that the appeal site forms part of the built form of this existing hamlet, which I consider to constitute an ‘other settlement’ for the purposes of policy interpretation.

I note that the 2025 consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework excluded hamlets from the definition of settlements. However, this remains a consultation document and therefore carries limited weight. In reaching my conclusion, I give significant weight to the Braintree Judgement1, paragraph 32 “In my view a settlement would not necessarily exclude a hamlet or a cluster of dwellings, without, for example, a shop or post office of its own, or a school or community hall or a public house nearby, or public transport within easy reach. Whether, in a particular case, a group of dwellings constitutes a settlement, or a ‘village’, for the purposes of the policy will again be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker”.

The Council refers to Policy HOU 8 of the Local Plan in its reason for refusal. Whilst the policy relates to isolated residential development within the open countryside, I have found that the appeal site forms part of a settlement and therefore does not lie within the open countryside as defined by the Local Plan. Nevertheless, in light of the Council’s position, it remains necessary to consider whether the proposed development would constitute an ‘isolated’ dwelling.

Taking into account Judgements2 the phrase contained within paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) ‘isolated homes in the countryside’, isolated connotes a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement. Whether a proposed new dwelling is, or is not, isolated in this sense will be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker in the particular circumstances of the case in hand. 1 [name] v SSCLG, Greyread Ltd & Granville Developments Ltd [2018] [name] 610 2 [name] v SSCLG, Greyread Ltd & Granville Developments Ltd [2018] [name] 610, endorsed in City and Country Bramshill Ltd v SSHLG and others [2021] [name] 320

The appeal site is positioned between existing residential properties, with additional dwellings located opposite. To the rear of the site lies an open field crossed by a public right of way connecting the hamlet with the A68 and [site address] . The proposed dwelling would therefore sit within an established grouping of built development and would be visually read in the context of the surrounding properties. Although the wider area retains an open rural character, the proposed development would not be isolated.

Previous approvals3 for residential development on the appeal site are noted, whilst these have lapsed and were approved under a different development plan, I give weight to the assessment by the Council that the location of the site was found to be a sustainable location, within the countryside, however not isolated.

I find that the appeal site is not isolated nor in the open countryside Policy HOU8 of the Local Plan is not relevant to the determination of this proposal. There is no conflict with Policy HOU 2 of the Local Plan which seeks to deliver new residential development in a range of tenure, types and sizes to meet housing requirements for Northumberland.

The proposed development would comply with Policy STP 1(1f) of the Local Plan by being development within other settlements not identified as [name], [name], [name] or [name] will be limited to that within the built form of the settlement. There is no conflict with the Framework which seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas.

The dwelling is proposed as self-build, and exemption from the statutory biodiversity net gain condition is sought on this basis. The appellant has submitted a planning obligation to secure the dwelling would meet the definitions in the [name] and Custom Housing Act 2015 as amended. Based on the information available I consider the proposal to be one which will not require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because a statutory exemption arrangement applies.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be allowed.

I have imposed a standard condition relating to the commencement of development and a condition specifying the relevant plans as this provides certainty. In order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area I have imposed a condition concerning materials, boundary treatments and hardstanding.

In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and to provide a sustainable form of development I have attached a condition relating to the integration of measures to minimise resource use, mitigate climate change, and ensure development proposals are adaptable to a changing climate.

To ensure, as appropriate, the development is served by high quality communications infrastructure I have attached a condition relating to broadband. 3 15/00364/OUT & 18/03286/FUL

In the interests of highway safety, a condition has been imposed relating to the construction of a vehicular access. I have imposed a condition requiring the submission of a construction method statement in order to help minimise the negative effects of the construction phase on neighbouring occupiers.

To conserve and enhance biodiversity conditions have been imposed relating to mitigation measures to be incorporated. In the interests of biodiversity and water supply and sewerage a condition is attached specifying requirements.

To prevent the spread of invasive species a condition has been imposed relating to the treatment and removal of invasive plant species.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the approved plans. The approved plans for this development are: • Proposed Site Plan • V6.2A.1: Burnside 3 of 4 (proposed ground floor) • 1 of 4: Burnside V6.2A.1 (proposed north and east elevations) • 2 of 4: Burnside V6.2A.1 (proposed south and west elevations) • 4 of 4: Burnside V6.2A.1 (proposed upper floor) • Location Plan (Date produced 15th Jun 2025)

The facing materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the development shall be in accordance with details contained in the application.

Prior to occupation of either dwelling, full details of new boundary treatments and hardstanding shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Notwithstanding the details submitted with this application, prior to the construction of the approved dwelling above damp proof course level, a scheme to demonstrate how the development will minimise resource use, mitigate climate change and ensure proposals are adaptable to a changing climate to achieve sustainable design and construction in the design of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details, and shall be retained thereafter.

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, full fibre broadband shall be installed and made operational, unless details are submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority that alternative provision or no broadband provision is justified. Any alternative broadband provision shall be installed and made operational prior to the occupation of the development.

The development shall not be occupied until a means of vehicular access has been constructed/completed in accordance with the approved plans and [name].

Development shall not commence until a [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Construction Method Statement shall, where applicable, provide for: i. vehicle cleaning facilities; ii. the parking and management of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; iii. the loading and unloading of plant and materials; and iv. storage of plant and materials used in demolition and /or construction of the development.

No development will be undertaken other than in full adherence to the avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures detailed within the ecological report ('[name]. [name] to Woodhouse, [site address] . E3 Ecology 2018’) and this condition, including, but not restricted to; a. Provision of a 5m buffer zone to the existing watercourse, as shown on the redline boundary plan V6.2A.1(2) b. No development, tree felling or vegetation clearance shall be undertaken between 1 March and 31 August unless a suitably qualified ecologist has first confirmed that no bird’s nests that are being built or are in use, eggs or dependent young will be damaged or destroyed. c. Adherence to 'Bat Conservation Trust. Guidance Note 08/23. Bats and artificial lighting at night’ d. No development shall be carried out other than in accordance with the guidance set (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pollution prevention-for-businesses).' e. Any deep (in excess of 300mm) excavations left open overnight to be either securely covered, fenced or provided with an earth or timber ramp not less than 300mm wide and no steeper than 45 degrees to provide an escape route for ground animals that might otherwise become entrapped. f. Root protection zones will be implemented around all retained trees in accordance with the guidance given in BS 5837:2012.

To ensure there is a net gain in ecological value a minimum of one bat box and one bird box (targeting [name] such as house sparrow) shall be built-in to the new building following best practice guidance (e.g. Bird nesting features should be around 2m high and should be north or east facing. Swift boxes/bricks should be at least 4m high. Bat roosting features should be a minimum of 3-4m high, on gable ends or at eaves height. Both should be near suitable foraging habitat and away from windows).

The package treatment plant installed as part of this development shall be of a type that has a total phosphorus level (Ptot) in its discharge of less than 2mg per litre. The development hereby authorised shall not be occupied until the LPA has been provided with a [name] demonstrating that this limit will be complied with, and with evidence of an ongoing service contract with a certified maintenance provider.

Prior to development commencing, a detailed plan for the effective treatment and removal of invasive plant species Rhododendron sp. Cotoneaster sp. [name] rugosa named on Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) shall be submitted to the LPA for approval in writing, with the details being fully implemented as approved. The plan will be informed by a specialist contractor and include identification and treatment prior to commencement, ongoing checking and treatment during construction, safe disposal and long-term management.