Appeal 6005171

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application is submitted in outline with all detailed matters reserved for a subsequent approval. An indicative layout (drawing No. OAK2) accompanied the application and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis, treating any details of reserved matters shown on the plan as being indicative only.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether or not the proposal would be in a suitable location, having particular regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan and to the accessibility of the site to services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site forms part of a larger agricultural field, largely enclosed by existing hedgerows, located to the east and some significant distance beyond the development boundary for Oakhill as defined by the Mendip District Local Plan Part I: Strategy and Policies 2006 – 2029 (2014) (MDLP). Therefore, it is defined as being in the open countryside for the purposes of Policy CP1 of the MDLP. In the open countryside, CP1 indicates that development is strictly controlled, but may be exceptionally permitted subject to the provisions set out in CP4. The Council and the appellant agree that the proposal does not meet any of the listed exceptions, and having regard to the evidence before me, I conclude the appeal scheme is not demonstrated to meet one of the listed exceptions within Policy CP4. Therefore, the proposal would not accord with this policy.

CP1 of the MDLP sets out the spatial strategy for the district and places an emphasis on maximising the use of land within existing settlement limits and seeks to direct the majority of development to the five principal settlements in the area. Oakhill is defined as a Secondary Village. These villages are stated to offer some services and public transport and are therefore considered to be appropriate for development aimed at meeting more localised housing, business and service needs.

CP2 of the MDLP indicates that in both the primary and secondary villages proportionate growth equating to 15% of the existing housing stock is envisaged as appropriate to enable local housing needs to be met. [name] that equates to 40 dwellings over the plan period. The evidence before me indicates that to date, 48 dwellings have been provided in the village.

I have been directed to an appeal decision at Chapelfield, Oakhill1 where the Inspector allowed outline planning permission for up to 23 dwellings. Whilst the appellant draws parallels to the findings of the Inspector in the Chapelfield appeal to this appeal, the appeal site in that case was contiguous to the development boundary on three sides. Whereas this appeal site before me lies beyond it by some distance, so its situation cannot be said to be exactly the same. However, as a consequence of the Chapelfield and other decisions in the locality, the resultant percentage of homes relative to the local requirement exceeds the 15% of existing housing stock growth figures for Oakhill, outlined at Table 9 of CP2, and those other secondary villages highlighted by the appellant.

[name] is defined as a secondary village, during my site inspection I observed few services and facilities that would support the day-to-day needs of future occupiers, and it is likely that onward travel to other settlements would be necessary for residents to access many of those required to meet day to day needs, for which connectivity by sustainable and public transport modes appears quite constrained. Moreover, access to Oakhill’s limited services would involve walking along [site address] , which is narrow, largely unpaved and unlit. The close-by Public Right of Way provides some additional connectivity to Oakhill, across a field to the north, but neither route would be likely to be perceived as convenient, attractive, or safe, particularly during inclement weather or during the hours of darkness.

As acknowledged by the appellant, access to public transport is limited. I accept that these findings may, to some extent, reflect characteristics typically associated with rural locations. Indeed, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and that development intended to meet local needs in rural areas may, in certain circumstances, need to be situated in locations where public transport provision is limited.

However, this general acknowledgement does not, in itself, remove the need for a careful and site-specific assessment of whether the level of accessibility would be acceptable in practice for future occupiers. In this regard, it remains necessary to consider the extent to which future residents would be able to access day-to-day 1 APP/E3335/W/24/3341085 services and facilities by realistic and sustainable means, having regard to the constraints identified.

I appreciate that in rural areas, the potential to provide for alternative means of transport is often limited. However, in this case, although future occupiers could at times walk or cycle to local services and potentially choose to access some limited public transport options, given the nature of the journeys and options available, I find that occupiers of the proposal would be likely to travel to other settlements by private vehicle to meet their general day-to-day needs. From what is before me and what I observed, to access a range of facilities to meet typical needs, this is likely to generate a significant number of additional journeys to other settlements and significant level of additional vehicular miles per year.

Given the distance to services and facilities, the nature of the journeys, and the public transport options available, an increase in travel by private car would be a likely inevitable consequence of the proposal. I therefore conclude that the appeal site would not provide a suitable location for the proposal, having particular regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan and to the accessibility of the site to services and facilities. In this respect, the proposal would be contrary to Policies CP1, CP2, CP4 and DP9 of the MDLP.

The wider landscape surrounding the appeal site is defined by its open and predominantly rural character, comprising extensive tracts of agricultural land with a clear sense of continuity and coherence. The site is enclosed by traditional field boundaries, chiefly formed by established hedgerows, and lies within a well-preserved pattern of irregularly shaped fields that are characteristic of historic countryside landscapes. Its open and undeveloped appearance and boundary vegetation is in keeping with and makes a positive contribution to the rural landscape and the character and appearance of the area

To the north of the site development is sparse and loosely distributed. [address] forms a modest but distinct cluster of residential and agricultural buildings aligned along [site address] , while to the south and east the land remains largely undeveloped and rural in character, punctuated only by occasional dwellings, farmsteads and small agricultural yards. Along the south of [site address] to the west of the site, residential dwellings of varying size, form and appearance and agricultural accesses are arranged in a loose linear pattern, largely set back from the highway.

The appellant has directed me to residential development at [address], granted via a prior approval submission (referenced: 2025/1558/PAA), permitting the conversion of three agricultural units to dwellings, along with a modest level of ancillary development. The three agricultural buildings are located to the rear of the site. During my site inspection I observed the group of agricultural buildings from the highway. Given the existing layout, even once converted these buildings and associated development would be largely indiscernible as dwellings due to their siting and orientation. As a consequence, I do not consider that the use of these buildings as dwellings would alter the current experience of the street scene or the character and appearance of the area.

I have had regard to the scope for possible layouts, scales and configurations for the appeal site that might be possible within the scope of this appeal scheme, including alternatives and solutions shown and suggested by the appellant in their evidence. Notwithstanding the scope of high quality reserved matters submissions, it is inherent that erecting eight dwellings and associated garages and infrastructure would result in the loss of open countryside and a significant urbanisation of the site. The domestic paraphernalia that occupation would generate, along with the required access, parking and garden areas, and additional number of comings and goings would add to this significant and harmful urbanising effect. Moreover, due to the topography of the land, the appeal site would be clearly read as extending development into the open countryside beyond the adjacent established residential development.

The appeal site is in a prominent position and notwithstanding the scope for high quality reserved matters submissions, the harmful effects of the proposal would be visible from a significant distance along [site address] due east and west, a limited number of nearby residential properties and a proportion of the wider rural landscape. As such, the proposed development would appear as an incongruous, urban form of development and would be harmful to the rural and open character of the area.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the area and, in this respect, would be contrary to DP1, DP4 and DP7 of the MDLP. These policies seek to ensure that new development contributes positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness across the district and that their siting and design are compatible with the landscape character area.

Whilst the Council did not refer to the nearby listed buildings in their reasons for refusal, an interested party has directed me to them. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 contains a statutory duty to consider whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting. Special regard should be given to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

[address] and [address] are located relatively close to the appeal site and are both [name] listed buildings. Their significance primarily lies in their architectural and historical interest as original 18th century buildings. Acknowledging that the submission was made in outline only, due to the intervening distances and positioning of the heritage assets, existing boundary treatment and the likely landscaping, based upon the submissions and the evidence before me at the outline stage in this regard, it would seem possible that a sufficiently high quality scheme could conceivably be designed so that the experience of the architectural and historic features of the listed buildings in their settings would not be undermined. However, on this basis, a lack of harm in this respect is a neutral matter in the balance.

The site lies within the [name] of the Mells Valley Special Area of Conservation for [name] bats. As a European Designated Site, this is protected pursuant to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended).

I note the duties of the competent authority and, when necessary, the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment, and the Council’s findings on this matter. [name] to agree and find there would be no adverse effects upon the integrity of the SAC and its qualifying features, this would be a neutral matter in the balance. I also note the suggestion of biodiversity enhancements, the scope for which I have considered in my balancing exercise below.

The Council has confirmed that it is able to demonstrate a housing land supply of 2.84 years. A shortfall of around this order is well below Government expectations. As a consequence, paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework requires that 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 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.

In this instance, the proposal would provide additional residential units. The Framework acknowledges the contribution small and medium sized sites can make in meeting housing requirements, but even as a windfall site, the proposal would make only a modest contribution towards addressing the shortfall. There would be some limited social, economic and environmental benefits arising from the construction phase and future occupiers would bring some trade and benefit to nearby shops, and other facilities and services.

The appellant has indicated that the two semi-detached dwellings proposed (plots 4 and 5) would be gifted to the Parish Council or a Housing Association. I have not been provided with any evidence of any mechanism that secures this, such as a signed legal agreement. Accordingly, I cannot be certain that this would be forthcoming. Taken together, in this case, even were it possible to achieve this, the benefits of the appeal scheme are attributed moderate weight in its favour.

[name] to agree with the appellant’s view and noting the findings of the Inspector in Chapelfield decision, the conflict with policies specifically due to the site location outside the settlement boundary should be attributed limited weight. However, there would be significant harm arising, in terms of the likely degree of reliance on the private motor vehicle due to, accessibility to facilities and services in conflict with important development plan and Framework objectives, which is a matter to which I attribute significant weight.

The proposal would also be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the area, which would be harm of a high order. The support for the principle of housing development within the Framework is balanced by the importance it places on the provision of housing development in sustainable locations that achieve well-designed places. In this instance, the harm I have found in these respects would be both significant and enduring. When assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

I therefore conclude that the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh the identified harm.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan read as a whole and there are no material considerations advanced, including the Framework that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.