Appeal 6005144

The appeal is dismissed.

This appeal relates to an outline proposal, with all detailed matters reserved for future consideration. Plans were submitted that show how a dwelling could be accommodated on the appeal site, which have been considered as illustrative.

The fourth reason for refusal on the Council’s decision notice refers to Policy W1A of the Willington Neighbourhood Plan (WNP). The Council acknowledges that it was included in error and that the appeal site is not located within the WNP area.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposal, having regard to the spatial strategy and accessibility; • the effect of the proposal on ecology; and • whether the proposal would meet the requirements of local policy relating to the Forest of [name] (FoMV).

The appeal site is a plot of land that forms part of the residential curtilage of the large detached residential property known as [site address] . It is mainly laid to grass and contains some ornamental planting and areas used for the storage of building materials. Hedgerows with intermittent smaller trees form the boundaries to the fields beyond and mature trees exist to the front, beyond which is the layby off [site address] . Location: spatial strategy and accessibility

Policy 3S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan (2020) (LP) sets out the Council’s spatial strategy in high level terms. Within this context, LP Policy 4S establishes the amount and distribution of housing development across the borough, directing growth towards sustainable locations, including some towards Bromham as a [name] (KSC) that provides a good range of services and access to the public transport network. LP Policy 7S states that development outside of the defined Settlement Policy Areas (SPA), including Bromham as a KSC, will be permitted if it is appropriate in the countryside in accordance with the LP policies listed at points i. to v., none of which are relevant in this case. In addition, development on sites that are well-related to a defined SPA, [name] or the built form of another settlement will be supported where it meets criteria vi. to x. The policy also sets out a further three criteria (xi. to xiii.) that any development in the countryside must meet.

The appeal site is located approximately 1km from the edge of the KSC of Bromham and is within a predominantly rural area characterised by sporadic residential development interspersed with fields. It is also physically separated by agricultural land from the more concentrated and continuous development that comprises the [name] of [name]. For these reasons and for the purposes of assessing the proposal against LP Policy 7S, the appeal site is not well related to a defined settlement. Given that it fails on this first fundamental requirement of the policy, it is not necessary to consider the proposal against criteria vi. to xiii.

The appeal site is not in an isolated position being adjacent to [site address] . Furthermore, it is acknowledged that rural locations do not necessarily have the same level of accessibility as urban environments and development within such locations can support rural settlements and communities. However, the site is disconnected from Bromham, and the services, facilities and regular public transport links it offers are more than 1km away. Although there is a footpath along most of [site address] between the appeal site and Bromham, it is unlit and a large stretch is narrow and is in poor condition under foot. The route is therefore unlikely to be attractive and safe to use, particularly in the dark and by those with young children or with mobility challenges. Closer bus stops are located within [name], approximately 750m away. However, they provide very infrequent services and are therefore limited in benefit. Collectively, the above factors would result in residents being heavily reliant on use of the private car.

For the above reasons, the appeal site is not a suitable location for the proposal, having regard to both the spatial strategy and accessibility. Thus, it is contrary to [name] 3S, 4S and 7S.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) impose a duty to consider whether [name] would likely be affected by the proposed development.

The plot, whilst part of the residential curtilage of [site address] and largely dominated by mown grass, does benefit from substantial hedgerow and tree boundaries, and its rural location offers potential habitat that could support various protected species. Whilst presently in outline form, the proposal seeks consent for a 4-bedroomed dwelling that would inevitably introduce a significant amount of built development to the site.

In the absence of an ecological assessment there is insufficient information to carry out the regulatory duty imposed by the Habitats Regulations to consider whether protected species would likely be harmed by the proposed development, and if so, whether further species-specific surveys, followed by appropriate mitigation measures, would be required and effective.

It is noted that the appellant has commissioned an ecological assessment. However, it was not submitted with either the planning application or appeal and it would not be appropriate for it to be conditioned for submission later given that planning permission should not be granted unless it is ascertained the proposal would not be likely to cause harm.

For the above reasons, the proposal would fail to accord with [name] 42S and 43, which, amongst other things, protect biodiversity from the effects of development proposals, require an appropriate assessment to be made by a suitably qualified professional and necessitate that development proposals provide a net increase in biodiversity.

Policy 36S provides support for the creation of the FoMV to help deliver the environmental led regeneration of the area. The policy confirms that development proposals within the FoMV, such as this, will be required to demonstrate how they can deliver 30% tree cover across the site, contribute to the environmental led regeneration of the FoMV and demonstrate how the proposal reflects the relevant design guidance for development within the FoMV.

The policy does not necessarily preclude development or stretch to the crux of the principle of the scheme, which is sought in this case, but seeks to steer the detailed design of development proposals to meet the requirement to deliver the growth of the FoMV. Layout is a matter reserved for later consideration in this case. It is also noted that the appeal site is a substantial size, and the illustrative plans demonstrate sufficiently that the proposed dwelling could be accommodated whilst leaving a considerable area undeveloped and set aside for tree coverage. Furthermore, it is noted that any existing trees and boundary hedges can be included within the canopy contribution, which the site benefits from.

For the above reasons, the proposal could deliver 30% tree coverage across the site, which could be secured by condition requiring firm details to be submitted at reserved matters stage once the proposed site layout is established. The proposal would therefore accord with LP Policy 36S.

The Council can only demonstrate a 3.35-year supply of deliverable housing sites, which falls short of the required 5-year supply as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). In such circumstances the provision of housing, particularly on small sites such as this that are likely to come forward quickly, would contribute positively to the Council’s housing supply. However, the proposal is for a single dwelling and therefore this benefit only attracts moderate weight.

The appellant asserts that the proposed dwelling would be self-build and/or custom-build (SBCB), which is supported by the Framework. Furthermore, the Council accepts that there is a shortfall of at least 20 approved SBCB housing plots. This is of concern given the Council’s statutory duty to maintain the delivery of a sufficient number of plot permissions. However, there is no mechanism, such as a completed legal agreement, to secure the SBCB status of the proposed dwelling, despite the appellant showing willingness to provide one. Furthermore, a planning condition would not meet the test of enforceability in the Framework and simply including it in the description of development is not sufficiently robust. In the absence of firm reassurance that the dwelling would be SBCB, this benefit is limited in weight.

There are some economic benefits to the proposal, including employment and supply chain spend during the construction phase, and support for the local economy and facilities once the property is occupied. However, the proposal is only for a single dwelling and therefore these benefits are limited. Furthermore, the site is adjacent to a layby that the appellant claims has been subject to persistent anti-social behaviour. Whilst development of the site would likely provide additional natural surveillance to deter such activity, there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that other less harmful measures have been explored.

The appellant has cited a residential planning approval close to the appeal site1. However, this proposal sought a net decrease in the number of residential dwellings and the principle of residential development in this location was not therefore a contended matter. It is therefore not wholly comparable to this case.

As previously discussed, there is dispute between the main parties regarding whether the SBCB housing status of the proposal would be satisfactorily secured and therefore whether the claimed exemption from [name] (BNG) is valid. However, there is no need to consider the matter of BNG further given that the appeal is dismissed on other grounds.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possessed. [name] is a grade II listed 1889 William and [name] house, which is located approximately 250m from the appeal site. Due to the distance involved and the existence of intervening trees, hedgerows and built form, the appeal site is not within the setting of the listed building. For this reason, the proposal would preserve its setting.

The appellant has offered demolition of the outbuilding within the rear garden of [site address] as compensation for the construction of the proposed dwelling. However, the outbuilding sits outside of the appeal site boundary, and its removal could not therefore be secured. Nevertheless, its removal would not alter the harm found, particularly in relation to the unacceptable location of the appeal site.

There are suggestions that the Council did not work proactively with the appellant to try and alleviate the concerns raised. However, their conduct is not a matter for deliberation in the context of this planning appeal. 1 Council Ref 22/02313/FUL at 161-163 [site address] .

The Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The proposal is not in accordance with LP policies relating to the location and accessibility of the site and ecology. For the reasons already outlined, the conflict with these policies attracts significant weight. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan and should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In such circumstances, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged and in this case paragraph 11 d) ii) is relevant. It states that planning permission should be granted unless 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 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.

Although there are some benefits to the proposed development relating to housing supply and its contribution towards the local economy and job creation, for the reasons provided above these attract only moderate weight overall. On the contrary, the site is not a suitable location for the proposed development both from a spatial and accessibility perspective, and it would also fail to accord with policies relating to ecology. Collectively, these considerations weigh substantially against the scheme.

Consequently, the identified harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as articulated in paragraph 11 d) of the Framework.

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