Appeal 6005212

The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission (all matters reserved except for access) is granted for the erection of up to up to 3 plots for self-build and custom housebuilding at [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00912/OUT, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

As noted in the Decision Notice, the Council accepts it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The effect of this is two-fold. Firstly, it renders the relevant policies including settlement boundaries ‘out-of-date’ and, secondly, it engages the ‘tilted’ balance in paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This shifts the planning balance in favour of a grant of consent. Only if the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, should permission be refused.

A previous planning application for 11 dwellings was dismissed on appeal in October 2018.1 I have had regard to the 2018 decision insofar as it is relevant to my consideration of the current appeal.

The Council has referred to policies in the emerging Harborough Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan Review. However, given these documents have not been subject to examination at this stage, they carry only limited weight in the determination of this appeal.

The main issues are, firstly, whether the location of the development would comply with relevant development plan policy and secondly, the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area including nearby heritage assets. 1 [name]: APP/F2415/W/17/3192138

The Development Plan comprises the Harborough Local Plan 2019 (HLP) and the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2018 (GBNP) subsequently amended in October 2020. As the GBNP is more than 5 years old, the protection in NPPF paragraph 14 does not apply.

The site is adjacent but outside the settlement boundary of [site address] and therefore in accordance with GBNP Policy N2, it is in the countryside for planning purposes. HLP Policy GD3 permits new housing in the countryside in accordance with Policy GD4. At part 1a) this states that proposals for no more than 4 dwellings will be permitted where they are “within or physically and visually connected to settlements and which meet a local need for housing of a particular type...providing this has been evidenced through a rural housing needs survey or a neighbourhood plan”. The Council argue that the appeal site is not physically or visually connected to the settlement of [site address] and therefore the requirements of GD4(1)a are not met.

The appeal site is 0.87 hectares in size and comprises a single parcel of open land which is currently in use for pasture purposes. It is accessed from [address] to the site’s northern boundary. It is bounded to the north by traditional two-storey housing. While most dwellings address [address], some backland development is evident. To the east is the village cemetery and to the west private residential gardens. To the south is open countryside.

[name] visited the area, I approached [site address] along [address]. I observed a marked change in character as one reaches the eastern boundary of the cemetery. At that point, the brick wall and speed limit signs are immediately apparent and mark a change in character from the rural landscape which dominates to the south. A short distance further, the cemetery entrance as well as a new residential access2 opposite, come sharply into view. Even at this point, which is well before the proposed site access, I got the sense that I had entered the village. That perception was only strengthened as I reached the proposed access point where street lighting, on-street parking, a pedestrian footway and high-density housing provided me with the inescapable feeling of being within the village rather than outside it.

I am therefore satisfied that the development would not conflict with Policies GD3 or GD4. The Council has referred to Corbett v Cornwall Council [2022] [name] 1069 (27 July 2022) in its submissions. However, a copy of the judgement, or even a summary, has not been provided and therefore its relevance to the appeal scheme is unclear.

HLP Policy GD6 and GBNP Policy ENV1 state that development within Areas of Separation will only be supported where it does not compromise, either alone or in conjunction with other existing or proposed development, the effectiveness of the Area of Separation in protecting the identity and distinctiveness of the village. I note that the evidence base for the Council’s emerging Local Plan found that the appeal. site does not play a primary role in the separation of [site address] and [name]. Even if it did, the majority of the site would remain open, thus 2 I understand that the Council resolved to grant planning permission on this site for 11 dwellings. [name]: 25/00608/FUL protecting the identity and distinctiveness of the village. I therefore consider that the conflict with GD6 and ENV1 would be limited.

The appeal scheme concerns a development for custom and self-building housing. This would be secured through the [name] submitted with the appeal. HLP Policy H5 sets out that proposals for self-build and custom-build housing will be supported in any location suitable for housing. GBNP Policy H4 supports the provision of self-build units as part of the appropriate mix of dwellings. According to the [name], the Council has a cumulative shortfall of 172 custom/self-build dwellings. There is nothing before me to suggest that the above shortfall is likely to be addressed during the life span of the HLP. Accordingly, and in accordance with other appeal decisions in the borough, the supply of three self and custom-build units is an important planning consideration which must carry significant weight in its own right.

[name] have found that the appeal site is “within”, or at the very least “physically and visually connected” to [site address] , there would be no conflict with Policies GD3, GD4 and H2.

There is little doubt that the appeal site contributes significantly to a pleasant rural setting to the south of [address]. To that end the construction of the proposed access road and the erection of three dwellings, whatever their final form, would result in some harm to the character and appearance of the area. However, the same argument could be made in respect of any development on greenfield land and is not therefore reason to dismiss the appeal, particularly bearing in mind that unallocated greenfield sites will almost certainly need to come forward if the Council are to meet its housing targets.

The proposed indicative site plan shows a new access off [address] with the dwellings sited in the western part of the site close to the shared boundaries with houses on [address]. The dwellings would be surrounded by generous amounts of landscaping and open space including an attenuation pond. In my view, this low density and spacious character would be appropriate to the edge of settlement location.

The Design Code submitted with the application indicates that Plot 1 could be up to 1.5 storeys and Plots 2 and 3 up to 2 storeys. It also states that the dwellings would be constructed from traditional materials such as natural stone or timber cladding for external walls, natural slate for roof material and either black coated aluminium, black steel frames or timber frames for fenestration purposes.

Despite the [name], the appearance and scale of the dwellings would depend on matters reserved for future approval. That is important since some of the reasoning in the [name] is predicated upon Plot 1 being a “suburban bungalow” which it is said would be out of keeping with its surroundings. Given the outline nature of the application such concerns regarding the scale and appearance of the individual plots are matters that could be resolved at the Reserved Matters stage if, for example, the Council felt that a bungalow would be inappropriate.

To my mind, the indicative drawings show a layout that would not be dissimilar to that approved by the Council in respect of 25/00608 and the development to the rear of [address]. Based on the foregoing I am satisfied that the development would respect the form and character of the existing settlement and landscape as required by Policy GD2.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (as amended) states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the decision maker shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Section 72(1) requires decision makers to give special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas.

There are no heritage assets on the appeal site. However, it does adjoin the non-designated [site address] Cemetery to the east and the [site address] Conservation Area (GBCA) to the west. In addition, the site lies in close proximity to several listed buildings along [address] to the north of the appeal site3. The Heritage Impact Assessment submitted with the application sets out the significance of all the various assets and I do not consider it necessary for me to repeat this information again here.

The disagreement between the parties relates solely to the impact of the scheme on the significance or special architectural or historic interest of the assets through a change to their setting. What constitutes ‘setting’ is a well understood notion – it is the surroundings in which an asset is experienced. However, it is important to recognise that setting is not a heritage designation in its own right and is distinct from curtilage, character or context. There is generally a staged approach to scoping assets in or out of analysis, predominantly done on the basis of intervisibility. While non-visual considerations can sometimes be relevant to the issue of setting, there is no evidence of any specific historical or cultural associations between the appeal site and nearby assets.

Based on the indicative layout, Plot 1 would be approximately 70m from the listed school and 80m from the church and 120m from the non-designated village hall including listed walls and piers. In all cases, the appeal site is well screened by roadside hedges, existing built development and perhaps most notably the small, wooded area to the east of [address]. Given the lack of intervisibility between the appeal site and these assets, I do not consider the appeal site can reasonably be said to form part of the surroundings in which they are experienced. Accordingly, I conclude there would be no harm to these assets.

The significance of the GBCA is primarily contained in the relationship of its constituent vernacular buildings to its medieval street pattern and the greens at its centre. None of these principal components would be affected by the appeal scheme. As noted previously, the erection of three dwellings and associated development on the appeal site would clearly change the nature of views across it from [address] which lies of the eastern limit of the GBCA. To that extent, the proposed development would harm the rural setting of the GBCA. However, the appeal site is not identified in the Conservation Area Appraisal as an important contributor, and I note it was not included within the GBCA when the boundaries 3 The Vicarage (no.15), 7, 9 and [address] and School ([name] listed), The Church of [name] ([name] listed) and Wall and [name] to North of Village Hall ([name] listed). were reviewed and amended in 2005. Given the limited degree of encroachment and the potential for landscape mitigation, I consider the level of such harm would be at the very lower end of the ‘less than substantial’ scale.

There would also be some minor change in views from 7, 9, 11 and [address]. The significance of these assets in primarily contained in a visual appreciation of their architectural form and fabric. In all cases, the change in these views would depend on the scale of the proposed dwellings. However, based on the indicative drawings, the effects would be fairly limited given the set-back and height of the proposed dwellings in addition to the amount of intervening landscaping. Any change would invariably decrease over time as the landscaping scheme for the site matures. For these reasons, I consider the level of harm to the setting of Nos. 7, 9, 11 and 15 to be at the lower end of the ‘less than substantial’ scale.

The non-designated cemetery dates from 1879 and follows the pattern of such land uses of the Victorian-era in its separation from the settlement, principally for health reasons. The historic core of the cemetery which contains the Victorian gravestones is enclosed by a tall brick wall. This offers limited visibility between this part of the cemetery and the appeal site. The indicative layout indicates that significant tree planting would take place along the site’s eastern boundary with the houses themselves sited on the western part of the site, furthest away from the cemetery.

Even if the proposed dwellings were not visible from the cemetery, I acknowledge there would be some dilution of the functional separation between the GBCA and the cemetery. However, given the amount of open space and structural landscaping shown on the indicative plan, this would not be at anywhere near the same level as the 2018 scheme. It must also be noted that the Council has also approved development on the northern side of [address]. In my view, this has had a more profound effect on the cemetery and its setting than the current appeal scheme. Taking all these matters in the round, I consider there would be very limited harm to the setting of the cemetery.

I have noted concerns regarding the potential impact on the ridge and furrow landform on the appeal site. However, all parties accept that this is not well preserved and there are other prominent and highly visible examples within the local area. For these reasons, I am satisfied that any harm resulting from the loss of the ridge and furrow could be adequately mitigated by a scheme of recording.

NPPF paragraph 215 and LP Policy HC1 require that a balancing exercise is undertaken to weigh any heritage harm against the public benefits of the proposal. I undertake this balance in the context of the guidance in NPPF paragraph 212, which makes it clear that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the public benefits arising from the proposed development including the delivery of three self-build/custom houses in an area where there is significant unmet demand, are sufficient to outweigh the identified harm to the GBCA, and 7, 9, 11 and [address]. The proposal therefore passes the paragraph 215 test and heritage matters do not provide a strong reason to refuse the proposed development.

The Council has suggested a number of planning conditions which I have considered against advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). In some instances, I have amended the conditions in the interests of brevity, to avoid repetition or to ensure compliance with the PPG.

To provide certainty, I have imposed standard conditions for outline permissions covering time limits and the approved plans [Conditions 1-4]. A Design Code is necessary to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development [5]. A Construction Management Plan is necessary to safeguard the living conditions of local residents [6]. Contaminated land conditions are necessary to ensure the land is suitable for a residential use [7-8]. Highway conditions are necessary in the interests of highway safety and to ensure a satisfactory layout [9-10]. A drainage condition is necessary to ensure satisfactory drainage and future maintenance of the site in the interests of flood prevention [11]. Details of protection measures for trees and hedges are necessary to protect important landscape features on the site [12]. I have imposed a condition to ensure the remaining ridge and furrow on the appeal site is appropriately recorded [13]. Given that the reserved matters include layout, scale and appearance, I am not persuaded a levels condition is necessary at this stage.

I have identified minor harm to a number of designated heritage assets as well as the non-designated cemetery. In addition, there would be limited harm to the character and appearance of the area as well as limited conflict with policies GD6 and ENV1 regarding the Area of Separation. [name] attach moderate weight to these harms.

The proposed development would make a modest contribution to the supply of market housing. It would also contribute to the provision of custom/self-build homes in the borough. Given the Council is not building enough homes to meet the needs of its residents, these benefits collectively carry substantial weight. The proposed development would also provide economic benefits through short-term construction employment, resident expenditure in the local economy and Local Authority revenue benefits in the form of council tax and new homes bonus payments. These benefits carry moderate weight.

The benefits listed above clearly outweigh the identified harm. The development would therefore be sustainable development for which there is a presumption in favour in the NPPF as well as the Development Plan (via Policy GD1).

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

No development shall commence on site until details of appearance (including external materials), landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called "the Reserved Matters") have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Applications for the approval of all of the Reserved Matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date on this Decision Notice.

The development hereby approved shall commence prior to the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the Reserved Matters to be approved.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in general accordance with drawing nos: L363-BRP-00-ZZ-DR-A-0100-P01 and L363-BRP-00-[name]-0102-P01.

Before the submission of any Reserved Matters, a [name] for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Design Code shall reflect the design requirements of [site address] Neighbourhood Plan. Reserved Matters submissions pursuant to Condition 1 of this consent shall thereafter be in accordance with the approved [name].

No development shall commence on site (including any site clearance/preparation works), until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. Details shall include the following, which shall be adhered to throughout the construction period: - a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; b) loading/unloading and storage of plant, materials, oils, fuels, and chemicals; c) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing; d) wheel washing facilities and road cleaning arrangements; e) measures to control the emission of dust during construction; f) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from site preparation and construction works; g) measures for the protection of the natural environment; h) hours of construction work, including deliveries and removal of materials; i) full details of any piling technique to be employed, if relevant; j) location of temporary buildings and associated generators, compounds, structures, and enclosures; k) routeing of construction traffic; l) full details of any floodlighting to be installed associated with the construction of the development, and m) management of surface water on site during construction of the development.

No development (except any demolition permitted by this permission) shall commence on site until a Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should any unacceptable risks be identified in the Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment, a [name] and a Verification Plan must be prepared and submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If, during the course of development, previously unidentified contamination is discovered, development must cease on that part of the site, and it must be reported in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 10 working days. Prior to the recommencement of development on that part of the site, a Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment for the discovered contamination (to include any required amendments to the [name] and Verification Plan) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such in perpetuity, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to occupation of the completed development, or part thereof, Either 1) If no remediation was required by Condition 9 a statement from the developer or an approved agent confirming that no previously identified contamination was discovered during the course of development, or part thereof, is received and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, or 2) A Verification Investigation shall be undertaken in line with the agreed Verification Plan for any works outlined in the [name] and a report showing the findings of the [name] relevant to the whole development, or part thereof, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as the access arrangements shown on Proposed Site Plan, drawing no. L363- BRP-00-ZZ-DR-A-0102-P01 have been implemented in full.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as vehicular visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 43 metres to the have been provided at the site access. These shall thereafter be permanently maintained with nothing within those splays higher than 0.6 metres above the level of the adjacent footway/verge/highway.

The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the [name], [name] (report ref: ADC2681-RP-B; 19.05.25) and completed prior to first occupation of any dwelling, and maintained as such in perpetuity

No development shall commence on site until the trees and hedgerows to be retained on the site have been enclosed by protective fencing, in accordance with [name] 5837 (2010): Trees in Relation to Construction. Before the fencing is erected its type and position shall be approved by the local planning authority, and after it has been erected it shall be maintained for the duration of the works and no vehicle, plant, temporary building or materials, including raising and or, lowering of ground levels, shall be allowed within the protected area(s). Any trees or hedges which die or damaged within five years following practical completion of the approved development shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable and, in any case, by not later than the end of the first available planting season, with native plants.

Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed photographic recording of the ridge and furrow landform on the site shall be made, and these records shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.