Appeal 6004959

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal, with access to be considered at this stage, and with all other matters reserved for future consideration. The site plan shows the layout of 4 detached dwellings. I have taken this plan into account for indicative purposes only.

The appellant has submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) with the appeal. Due to the nature of this information and that the Council has had the opportunity to comment on it, I am satisfied that taking it into account would not cause procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal. As such, I have accepted the LVIA.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is broadly rectangular in shape, consisting of mainly open grassland enclosed by hedgerows as well as post and wire fencing. To the south of [address], which is a quiet narrow lane, is a small cluster of traditional houses of a modest scale and a larger modern house. Open fields, many with established vegetation along the boundaries, areas of woodland, and sporadic buildings form the site’s context.

Further north, beyond an area of woodland, is the settlement of [name] with a noticeable amount of suburban housing off the main A53 [address]. I also saw clusters of buildings located along the A51 [address], to the south, and the roads linking it to the A53, to the west, set amongst open fields and woodland. Whilst there were glimpses of houses in the distance, the vicinity of the appeal site held a very secluded feel that made a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development is for 4 houses, utilising the existing field access. The indicative layout shows the plots split into approximate quarters, with each detached dwelling set within a generous plot fronting a centrally positioned turning circle.

My observations are broadly compatible with the LVIA, including in terms of the effects of the proposal on the site’s landscape features, on landscape character, on landscape designations and effects on visual receptors. Whilst the LVIA concludes that impacts on the visual amenity from some of the closest viewpoints would be moderate, the introduction of the proposed development on the field would erode the existing open and rural nature of the site. Moreover, the provision of 4 houses and associated curtilages would significantly expand the amount of residential development in the vicinity and represent a very clear encroachment into the countryside on the opposite side of [address], failing to recognise its intrinsic rural character.

Although the existing vegetation, as well as a new landscape buffer, to [address] and the adjoining path leading towards the southern edge of [name], would partly screen the urbanising impact of the appeal scheme, it would still be visible through breaks in the vegetation as well as from the access. Moreover, it would be clearly discernible to the occupiers of the dwellings to the immediate south.

My attention has been drawn to 2 approvals1 to the southwest of the appeal site. These sites are located between 2 roads that I saw carried a steady flow of traffic between the A53 and A51, close to a sizeable cluster of dwellings, which held a visual link to modern housing developments at the western end of [name]. Moreover, a scheme for 40 dwellings allowed on appeal2, is located to the immediate north of this cluster where the Inspector recognised that the scheme would generally integrate with the form of the existing settlement. Further approvals3 to the south of the appeal site are noted, which are located on the busy A51 and, in part, included the replacement of existing buildings.

Consequently, I have found these approvals to be materially different to the appeal scheme before me. As such, a comparison is of limited relevance in this instance, and I have considered the appeal before me on its individual merits.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policy CSP1 of the [site address] and [name] 2006-2026 ([name]), which seeks new development to be well designed to respect character, identity and context, including rural setting. It would also conflict with the [site address] and Stoke-on Trent Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2010, which requires, amongst other things, new housing to relate well to its surroundings and be designed to contribute towards improving the character and quality of the area. 1 Planning Decision Refs: 25/00080/OUT & 25/00688/PIP 2 Appeal Decision Ref: APP/P3420/W/25/3369116 3 Planning Decision Refs: 18/00507/OUT, 23/00246/FUL & 25/00185/FUL

I appreciate that there was a level of support for the scheme, including the potential for high quality self-build designs that would not be available on the market. Nevertheless, this does not outweigh my concerns about the effect of the scheme on the character and appearance of the area.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. I give significant weight to the conflict with Core Strategy Policy CSP1, which is consistent with the Framework in seeking to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character as well as recognising the intrinsic character of the countryside.

There is no dispute that the Council does not have a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, and the appellant has stated a figure of 3.08 years, which has not been challenged. Paragraph 11d) ii) of the Framework identifies that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to certain key policies including securing well-designed places.

The proposed development would make a positive contribution in the delivery of 4 energy efficient dwellings and biodiversity enhancements, on land not classified as Best and [name] agricultural land. There would also be associated economic benefits during the period of construction and once the dwellings are occupied. The limited scale of the development means that I afford the provision of 4 houses within the context of the current shortfall, along with the other benefits listed above, moderate weight in favour of the proposed development. I have considered paragraphs 61 and 73 of the Framework, which emphasise the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and the important contribution small and medium sized sites can make to meeting the housing requirement of an area.

In the absence of a mechanism to secure the dwellings as self-build and custom-build, I am unable to give weight to this factor. In an appeal decision4 for 3 self-build plots presented by the appellant in support of the appeal scheme, a [name] had been provided and accepted by the Inspector to secure the dwellings proposed as self-build or custom-build.

The appeal scheme has the potential to improve turning facilities on [address]. Although claims have been made of longstanding highway issues, including for refuse and emergency vehicles, they have not been substantiated with compelling evidence. On this basis and from my observations of very little traffic movement on the lane and the small number of dwellings served by it, I attribute this benefit limited weight.

There is agreement between the parties that the site is in a suitable location in terms of accessibility to services and facilities, that the site can accommodate 4 dwellings and that there are no technical objections. However, a lack of harm or 4 Appeal Decision Ref: APP/P3420/W/24/3355961 policy compliance in these respects are neutral considerations that weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

On the other side of the balance, there would be an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, which would be contrary to paragraphs 135 c) and 187 b) of the Framework. Given the long-lasting effects on the character and appearance of the area, I attribute significant weight to this conflict.

Therefore, I conclude that 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 such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11 d) of the Framework does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.