Appeal 6005231

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description from the appeal form as this matches that used on the decision notice and more accurately describes the proposed development.

The appeal is accompanied by legal agreements pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) which seek to secure the scheme as a self-build dwelling and secure contributions towards measures to mitigate any likely significant effect arising from the development on [name]. I shall return to these matters later.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan policies relating to development outside settlement limits and its accessibility to services and facilities; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The Council does not contend that the appeal site is isolated for the purposes of paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Nevertheless, there is no dispute between the parties that the site lies outside of any settlement limit defined by the development plan. Policy GC2 of the Broadland District Council Development Management DPD 2015 (DMDPD) defines the approach to the location of new development and highlights that outside of the settlement limits, development which does not result in any significant adverse impact will be permitted where it accords with a specific allocation and/or policy of the development plan.

The appeal has been accompanied by a [name] (UU) which seeks to ensure the dwelling is built and occupied as a self-build dwelling to meet the definition of a self-build home as set out in the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). The Council has not disputed the efficacy of the UU in securing the development as a self-build dwelling. Based on the evidence before me I see no reason to come to a different conclusion and have considered the appeal on this basis.

Policy 7.5 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (2024) (GNLP) allows for small scale residential development of up to 3 dwellings for self-build and custom build (SBCB) homes on sites that are within or adjacent to settlements and subject to meeting several criteria. The Council contends that as [site address] has no services or facilities to meet the day-to-day needs of future occupiers, it does not constitute a settlement in its own right and therefore the scheme fails to meet the requirements of the first part of this Policy. However, I have not been directed to any definition of a settlement within the development plan where this is a requirement and note that Policy 7.5 makes no such reference when considering what constitutes a settlement.

While the surrounding area is relatively rural, the appeal site is appreciated spatially and visually within the cluster of development that exists along [site address] . The dwellings which exist in close proximity to the appeal site along this road collectively form a recognisable group with a distinct built form, which I consider constitute a settlement without a defined settlement boundary. It is therefore necessary to assess the proposal against the remaining criteria of Policy 7.5.

The appeal site is relatively well contained by existing developments and would not extend the built form of the settlement. The appeal scheme would be reflective of the density of the surrounding built-up area and would have a ratio of building footprint to the plot area that is consistent with the existing nearby properties. I will also go on to conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area and thus, it would not result in a significant adverse impact on the landscape. This complies with the first three requirements of Policy 7.5. It therefore remains to consider whether the proposal accords with other relevant local plan policies. In this respect, the Council has referred to the site’s accessibility to services and facilities and reliance on private vehicles.

The supporting text to Policy GC2 of the DMDPD explains that new residential development should be focussed where future occupiers will have access to services, facilities and employment opportunities. Policy 2 of the GNLP and Policy GC4 of the DMDPD also seek to ensure that new development has safe and convenient access for all to local services and facilities and encourage walking, cycling and public transport. These policies closely align with the Framework where it seeks to promote sustainable transport and move away from the use of private vehicles.

From the evidence before me, [site address] does not appear to benefit from any services or facilities that would meet the day-to-day needs of future occupants. The evidence indicates that the closest settlements are Horsford and Hainford which are 1.9 and 2.1 miles respectively from the appeal site. However, I have no substantive evidence before me relating to the extent of services within these settlements.

The appellant refers to several bus services in their evidence, which they state offer regular, direct connections to higher order settlements such as Norwich and Aylsham which contain a range of services and facilities. However, the Council states that the closest bus stops to the appeal site which are served by public bus routes (excluding school bus services) are at [name] and [address], which they estimate to be between a [address] from the appeal site.

Notwithstanding the level of services and facilities potentially on offer in Horsford and Hainford, accessing these settlements and the abovementioned bus stops would necessitate walking along [site address] . [address] has no footpaths or streetlights and is subject to a 40mph speed limit in the vicinity of the appeal site. Given the distances involved and the nature of the routes, walking or cycling to and from the nearest bus stops, or to services and facilities, would unlikely be a safe and practical option for day-to-day living for all users and in all circumstances. Therefore, in all reasonable likelihood, future occupants of the development would likely be heavily reliant on private vehicles to meet their daily needs.

I acknowledge that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions vary from urban to rural areas and that sustainability must be considered in the round. In this case, car journeys to the closest facilities would be relatively short and the number of vehicle movements arising from a single dwelling would be relatively low, the use of electric vehicles as a sustainable transport mode could also reduce their environmental effects. However, even though the appellant would accept a condition requiring EV charging infrastructure to be installed at the site, this does not negate the need to offer a genuine choice of transport modes. It also remains necessary to ensure that safe and suitable access to the site by sustainable means can be achieved for all users, noting the Framework highlights that priority should be given first to pedestrian and cycle movements and second to access to high quality public transport.

Therefore, notwithstanding the above, the site’s poor connectivity by sustainable travel modes which are accessible to all, points generally to it being in a location where sustainable modes could not be maximised. This would result in a reliance on private vehicles. While this may be the case for other locations within the Local Authority area, it does not overcome the fact that the appeal site would not represent a location which is sustainable, as it would not be located where the need to travel would be limited, which is contrary to the Framework.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the site would not be a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan policies relating to development outside settlement limits and its accessibility to services and facilities. This conflicts with Policies GC1, GC2 and GC4 of the DMDPD and Policies 2 and 7.5 of the GNLP insofar as they support sustainable development objectives and promote developments that are designed to reduce the need to travel and maximise the use of non-car and sustainable forms of transport.

The appeal site relates to a parcel of land to the rear of properties which front [site address] . The site is accessed via [address] and is bound to the north by residential development. To the south, east and west the site is bound by land which appeared to be more commercial in character. There are examples on this road of dwellings following a linear pattern, positioned close to and fronting the highway with relatively shallow plot depths and the countryside beyond. However, there are also many examples of developments with built form extending for significant distances back from the highway. In close proximity to the appeal site, I also observed examples of back land developments with buildings sited beyond properties fronting the street. Together, these features result in a varied pattern of development in the locality.

The appeal scheme proposes the erection of a single-storey dwelling and detached garage. The appeal site is contained on all sides by existing developments and is well separated from the countryside to the south. As a result, whilst the scheme would result in development on a site which is presently devoid of built form, it would not encroach into the surrounding countryside. The dwelling would be accessed off [address] and situated behind properties on [site address] ; however, the development would not extend further south than other buildings that exist in the immediate vicinity, which form part of the established pattern of development.

The set-back position of the dwelling, coupled with its single storey design and scale would limit the visual presence of the development from the road. However, any achievable views from nearby properties or the public realm would be of a development that would not result in a significant adverse visual impact on the countryside, given its scale and proximity to other built form which occupies a similar set-back position.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposed development would be characteristic of the surrounding pattern of development and would therefore preserve the character and appearance of the area. This accords with Policies GC4 and EN2 of the DMDPD and Policy 2 of the GNLP insofar as they seek high standards of design in developments that respect the landscape character and appearance of an area.

The proposed development would be a self-build unit. The Council has a duty under the [name] and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016) to keep a register of persons who are interested in acquiring a SBCB plot and to grant enough suitable development permissions for serviced plots to meet the identified demand for the area. The Council states that it is meeting its obligations in relation to its SBCB housing requirements. While the appellant disagrees with this, I have not been presented with detailed evidence to substantiate that position. The Framework supports small sites coming forward for SBCB housing. Irrespective of whether the Council is meeting its obligations, this proposal would provide one additional unit to meet the Government’s aspirations, which is a benefit to be taken into account in favour of the proposal. Nevertheless, given the scale of the development, it is a benefit that attracts moderate weight.

The application was partly refused on the basis that the appellant failed to provide sufficient information to satisfy the Council that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of [name] including The Broads Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the [name] and [name] by demonstrating nutrient neutrality and a Green Infrastructure and [name] (GIRAMS) payment. The appeal is accompanied by a legal agreement which seeks to secure the relevant GIRAMS payment which the Council considers is adequate to address reason for refusal 6. However, the Council contends that no mitigation has been presented to address nutrient neutrality in relation to reason for refusal 5.

[name] found the appeal scheme to be acceptable in all other regards it would have been necessary for me to consider whether the measures put forward in the accompanying legal agreement would appropriately mitigate any likely significant effects arising from the development on the integrity of [name]. I would also have needed to undertake an Appropriate Assessment in relation to these matters. However, as I have found that the scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider this further.

Notwithstanding my findings in relation to the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, I have found that the appeal scheme would not be in a suitable location when assessed against development plan policies on development outside settlement limits and accessibility to services and facilities. This brings the development into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Development that conflicts with the development plan should normally be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council concedes that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The evidence provided by the Council indicates that the most recent supply figure is 4.85 years which is a marginal shortfall. Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is therefore engaged. Which in this case means granting permission 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 key policies including directing development to sustainable locations.

On one hand, the scheme would make an effective use of land to provide one SBCB dwelling, built to lifetime home standards. As a small-site, it could be built-out reasonably quickly. The development would therefore make a small but beneficial contribution to the choice of homes in the area and the supply of housing land, as well as providing social and economic benefits during construction and after occupation. Housing delivery is supported by the Framework and, therefore, this benefit weighs in favour of the proposal. However, in the context of one additional dwelling, any social, economic or environmental benefits associated with the development would be relatively limited, even taking account of the objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing in the Framework, the Council’s housing land supply position and the Council’s duty to provide sufficient SBCB housing plots. Therefore, the weight attached to these benefits overall is limited.

On the other hand, the development would be contrary to key policies in the Framework which seek to direct development to sustainable locations, manage patterns of growth that support walking, cycling and public transport use, while ensuring that such sustainable transport modes are prioritised and safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. Consequently, this conflict attracts substantial weight.

Accordingly, in the specific circumstances of this case, the adverse impacts of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework, when taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.