Appeal 6005294

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal relates to an application for permission in principle. In such applications, the matters for consideration are limited to the location, land use and amount of development proposed.

The development plan for the area includes the [name] (the CS)1 and the Allocations and Development Management Policies (the ADMP)2.

In the CS, [name] 1 and 2 require most development to be located at the District’s larger settlements, including designated service centres and principal villages. In smaller settlements such as Normanton, development is subject to Spatial Policy 3 which sets out criteria, including matters relating to location, scale and character. In the countryside, Policy DM8 of the ADMP requires development to be strictly controlled, other than certain types for which a rural location is essential; these do not include open-market housing.

It is agreed by the Council and the appellant that the District does not currently have a 5-year supply of land for housing. The evidence before me suggests that the figure is somewhere within a range of 3.43 years to 3.84 years3, both of these being dated January 2026. The lack of a 5-year supply means that the appeal must be determined in accordance with the ‘tilted balance’ described in paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF). 1 The Newark and [name], adopted March 2019 2 The Newark and [name] and Development Management Development Plan Document, adopted July 2013 3 The lower figure appears in Appeal 6001425, Land off [address], Halam; the higher is in the Council’s officer report

In the light of the above, and the submissions made, the main issues in the appeal appear to me to be as follows: ▪ the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; ▪ the effect on views of heritage assets; ▪ the scale of the development in relation to the size of the village; ▪ whether the development would be suitably located for access to local facilities; ▪ and whether any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the development’s benefits, when assessed against the policies of the NNPF as a whole.

In Spatial Policy 3 of the CS, the criteria against which proposals in the rural area are to be judged require, amongst other things, that developments should not detrimentally affect the character of the location or its landscape setting. In the NPPF, paragraph 187 seeks to ensure that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is recognised.

I saw on my visit that the appeal site comprises a rectangular field of just over an acre, used for horticultural production. The site lies a short distance beyond the northwestern end of the linear settlement of Normanton. Immediately to the southeast is an area of unmanaged scrubland, and then a group of former farm buildings now known as the [address] [name]. On the opposite side of [site address] is a single dwelling, ‘Cartref’, which is separated from the nearest property on that side of the road by a gap of some 100m. Elsewhere to the north, south, east and west of the appeal site, is mainly open, agricultural land. The landscape is generally undulating, with broad views in most directions.

Seen in all of the available public views, from [site address] , and from the footpath that runs south past the site itself, the appeal site is surrounded by undeveloped land, most of which is actively farmed. Any residential development on the site would therefore create a separate enclave of urban land use and built development, detached from the existing village, and poorly related to it. In this location, it seems to me that the development now proposed would appear as an incongruous and disruptive feature, intruding into the otherwise tranquil, pastoral landscape. As such, the development would detract unacceptably from the landscape’s rural character and scenic quality, and from the setting of the village.

The appellant contends that the appeal site is adjacent to the village, but in my view that argument is unfounded. Not only is the site separated from the village physically by the undeveloped scrubland plot that adjoins it, but visually that separation is further emphasised by the dense wooded frontage of the industrial estate. And furthermore, the buildings of the industrial estate, being single-storey and obviously agricultural in origin, appear as more of a transitional zone, rather than as part of the village itself. Seen on the ground therefore, the appeal site is clearly well beyond, and outside, the village’s existing built-up area.

I appreciate that permission in principle has recently been granted for two new dwellings on a site just beyond Cartref. To my mind however, any development on that site will be equally clearly outside the existing settlement, for the same reasons as the appeal site. Furthermore, that development will neither reduce the gap between the present appeal site and the village, nor consolidate the existing settlement. Consequently, the prospect of development beyond Cartref does not change my view that the present appeal site lies neither within nor adjacent to Normanton, but is some way outside. Nor does it affect my view as to the effect of the appeal proposal on the area’s character and appearance.

For these reasons, I find that the proposed development, due to its location, would have an unacceptably harmful impact on the setting of the village of Normanton, and on the surrounding landscape, and therefore on the character and appearance of the area as a whole. In this respect the scheme would conflict with the relevant provisions of Spatial Policy 3, and of NPPF paragraph 187.

In the ADMP, the appeal site falls within an area designated as a ‘protected view cone’, where Policy So/Pv requires views towards [name], the [name], the [name], and the [name] to be safeguarded. Of these, the Palace is a scheduled ancient monument, and the other three are all listed buildings, with the Minster being [name], and the [name]*.

On my visit I was able to see that, from some points on the western approach to Normanton, the Minster, Palace and Church were indeed distantly visible on the skyline, although not the Workhouse. On reaching the vicinity of the appeal site however, those views were largely obscured by vegetation, so that none of the heritage assets in question were readily discernible.

I appreciate that the views available may change with the seasons, but in the absence of any photographic or other evidence, I have only my own observations. Those observations do not seem to me to support the Council’s contention that any important views would be likely to be affected by the development now proposed. On this basis, I find no conflict with Policy So/Pv.

For the same reasons, I am also satisfied that the appeal site does not form part of the setting of any of the identified heritage assets, and that those settings would therefore be preserved.

In addition to the matters discussed above regarding location, the criteria in Spatial Policy 3 of the CS also require that any development in the smaller villages should be small-scale, and of a scale appropriate to its location.

In this case the Council suggests that the proposed development would be disproportionate to the size of the village. However, that contention has not been substantiated, and I see no apparent evidence to support it. I appreciate that Normanton is a very small village, of no more than around 25-30 dwellings in its main built-up area. But nevertheless, a development of up to 5 dwellings would be small in scale, and in numerical terms would be likely to increase the village population by no more than 15-20%. To my mind, a development of this size would clearly not be of such a scale as to dominate the existing community.

In this regard therefore, I find no conflict with Spatial Policy 3. But nevertheless, this does not overcome the conflict that I have already identified with that policy, in regard to the location of the site, as discussed above.

Spatial Policy 3 also states that housing needs will be met by focussing development in sustainable and accessible villages; these should have a range of local services for day-to-day needs, and also have sustainable access to higher-order settlements. In the NPPF, paragraph 83 states that housing in rural areas should be located where it will support the vitality of rural communities and village services. Paragraph 110 advocates that patterns of development should be actively managed to support sustainable transport objectives, although the opportunities may vary between urban and rural locations.

In the present case, Normanton itself has no facilities other than a garden centre with a tea room. The nearest other facilities are the [name] pub and the [address] nursery, which are at [address], on the outer edge of Southwell. These are about 1 km from the appeal site by road. But whilst that distance is potentially walkable or cyclable, the route involves a section along [address], where the traffic is relatively fast-moving, and the footways narrow and unlit. A choice of two slightly shorter routes are available via public footpaths, but these cross open fields, and lack all-weather surfaces. None of these are therefore likely to be realistic options for regular use, especially with children. And in any event, the facilities at [address] do not include any convenience shops or schools.

A larger range of services and facilities is available in Southwell village centre. But that is approximately twice the distance. There is no evidence of any relevant bus services, nor of any reasonably accessible facilities in any other nearby settlements.

It is therefore evident that, due to its location, the proposed development would fail to provide its future occupiers with acceptable access to any necessary facilities or services, and thus would not be sustainably located. In this regard the appeal proposal would conflict further with the relevant provisions of Spatial Policy

There is also no evidence that the development would be likely to support any such services elsewhere in the surrounding rural area. As such, the proposed scheme would also conflict with the aims of the NPPF, with regard to the location of rural housing and sustainable patterns of growth.

It is not disputed that the proposed development conflicts with the overall strategy in [name] 1 and 2 of the CS, and with the policy of restraint in the rural area in Policy DM8 of the ADMP. And in addition, for the reasons set out above, I have found that the scheme would also conflict with the CS’s Spatial Policy 3, because the location would cause harm to the character and appearance of the countryside, and would fail to provide reasonable access to any necessary facilities. No development plan policies have been identified that provide any positive support for housing development in this location. The appeal proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

Having regard for NPPF paragraph 11(d), the lack of a 5-year housing land supply means that these relevant development plan policies can no longer be regarded as up-to-date. However, when the appeal proposal is weighed against the NPPF as a whole, there is also a clear conflict with the policies that I have identified, in paragraphs 83, 110 and 187, which are concerned with rural housing, patterns of growth, and the protection of the countryside. In addition, paragraph 11(d)(ii) states that particular regard is to be paid to certain key NPPF policies, including those for directing development to sustainable locations; to my mind, this clearly must include paragraphs 83 and 110, and therefore the conflict with these carries particular weight.

In its favour, the development would add to the local housing stock, helping to make up part of the District’s shortfall. It would also bring economic benefits in the form of construction jobs, a boost to supply chain industries, and on-going local spending within the wider area. These benefits carry some positive weight in favour of the appeal. But nevertheless, they are relatively limited compared to the substantial adverse impacts that I have identified, arising from the conflicts with relevant NPPF policies.

I have found no harm to protected views, or in terms of the scale of the development. But the lack of harm in this regard is neutral. None of the other matters raised carries any significant weight, either for or against.

Consequently, in terms of the NPPF’s tilted balance, it is clear in my view that the benefits of the development are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the adverse impacts.

For the reasons explained above, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan. That conflict is not outweighed by any policies in the NPPF, including the operation of the tilted balance, nor by any other material considerations. I therefore conclude that permission in principle should be refused.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.