Appeal 6005327

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application was made in outline form, with access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for future consideration. I therefore have dealt with the appeal on this basis and treated the submitted plans as being illustrative only.

The main issues are the: • effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA); • location of the development outside a defined settlement boundary; and • accessibility to services and facilities for future occupants.

The appeal site is situated within the countryside and adjacent to the boundary of the CA. Based on my observations and the evidence before me, the significance of the CA lies in its historical and architectural interests as a small rural village centred on the [name] church with a variety of historic vernacular buildings. The rural surroundings in which the village and CA is experienced forms an important part of the significance of the asset.

The area is verdant and distinctly rural in character with very limited development along [site address] on the approach to [site address] . The appeal site is bound by established hedgerow on its boundary with [site address] and comprises an open broadly undeveloped grazed green field. The appeal site therefore contributes positively to the countryside character and appearance of the area and rural setting of the CA.

The appeal proposal would introduce a considerable domesticating presence on the rural edge of the settlement appearing as a suburban cluster of development set incongruously within the countryside. It would significantly erode the positive rural and open nature of the site and therefore the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. In addition, it would appear disjointed from the developed area of [site address] , appearing at odds with the historic pattern of development. Whilst there are a couple of nearby dwellings set along [site address] , these read as discrete singular rural properties within the landscape so are not comparable to

I understand that the proposal has been designed to address the concerns of the Inspector of the previous appeal1. In particular, the indicative plans show that compared to the previous scheme, a less dense development with more amenity land and a less rigid pattern of development could be achieved. Nevertheless, the harmful effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area through the inevitable amount of built form proposed and domestication of a large section of a green rural field, along with its physical separation from the developed core of [site address] would still occur. As such, these matters could not be overcome through detailed design at the reserved matters stage.

The proposal would therefore cause considerable harm to the character and appearance of the area, including to the significance of the CA through harm to its rural setting. Paragraph 212 sets out great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and in the context of this paragraph, the level of harm as described above to the significance of the CA would be less than substantial within the lower end of the spectrum.

Paragraph 213 of the Framework requires that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 215 requires that less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets is to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The development would provide up to six dwellings within a district which the evidence shows only has a housing land supply of 2.7 years. As discussed below, it would be in a location where future occupiers would have access to a range of rural services and facilities which would be accessible by methods of transport other than the private motor car. The proposal would also lead to a small and time limited economic benefit during the construction phase, as well as some limited social and economic benefits resulting from future occupiers. There would also be biodiversity and ecological benefits.

However, the public benefits in this case are moderate overall due to the modest scale of the development. Therefore, in this instance, the public benefits do not provide clear and convincing justification and are insufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. 1 PINS ref APP/X1545/W/24/3341856

The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies S1, D1 and D3 of the Malden District Local Development Plan (2017) (LDP). These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development respects and enhances the character and local context, with particular regard to the historic environment and landscape setting.

Policy S1 of the LDP seeks to provide a sustainable level of housing growth that meets local needs and that a wide choice of high-quality homes is delivered in the most sustainable locations.

Policy S2 sets out that strategic growth will be focused at the main settlements, and that a proportion of new development will be directed to the rural villages to support rural housing needs, local services and facilities and the rural economy. In this regard, Policy S2 apportions 300 windfall dwellings throughout the plan period.

Policy S8 defines [site address] as a smaller village in the settlement hierarchy and states that the Council will support sustainable developments within the defined settlement boundaries. Outside of settlement boundaries, its sets out that permission will only be granted where the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is not adversely impacted upon and one of a number of criteria is met.

The proposed development is situated outside of the defined settlement boundary of [site address] and within the countryside, it does not meet any of the criteria of Policy S8 and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area as identified above. The location of development would therefore conflict with Policies S1, S2 and S8 of the LDP which sets out the evidence based spatial strategy and plan-led approach to development within the district.

Whilst the site is situated outside of [site address] , it is within walking distance of its centre which is accessible from the site by a paved footpath. On my visit I observed a modest range of facilities within the village including a community shop and post office, village hall, church, primary school and pub.

Paragraph 110 of the Framework seeks for decisions to account for differences between urban and rural areas in terms of access to sustainable transport solutions. Taking into account the modest scale of the development and the village location, the services and facilities within walking distance of the site would be sufficient to provide a realistic prospect that future occupiers would not be solely reliant on the private motor car.

The proposal would therefore comply with Policy S1 of the LDP in this regard. This policy, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure development minimises the need to travel and where travel is necessary, prioritises sustainable modes of transport.

The evidence shows that the appeal site is situated within the zone of influence of the Blackwater Estuary Special Protection Area and Dengie Special Protection Area. As part of the planning application, after conducting an Appropriate Assessment, the Council concluded that development would result in a likely significant effect to these habitats sites. The evidence shows that since the refusal, the appellant paid £1015.70 towards the Recreational disturbance Avoidance and [name] to provide mitigation for the development. [name] was to allow the appeal, I would be required to undertake my own Appropriate Assessment. However, since I am dismissing it for other reasons, I do not need to consider this matter further as the Habitats Regulations indicate that an Appropriate Assessment is only required when the competent authority is minded to grant consent. I therefore do not need to consider this matter further as it does not impact the outcome of the appeal.

I am aware that the site is proximate to the [name]* listed building [address] situated on the other side of [site address] . Mindful of the statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. The rural countryside surroundings, which the appeal site falls within, positively contribute to its significance. Given the intervening vegetation and separation of the site from the asset, I consider that the setting of this listed building and the contribution the setting makes to its significance would be preserved. I note that the Council raised no objection in this regard either.

I understand that the site was submitted as part of the Council’s Call for Sites, where the Council considered that on balance development of the site would be suitable. However, it is not clear whether the site has been taken further forward in the local plan process. In addition, the methodology of this assessment is unclear from the evidence before me and if it was subject to the same level of scrutiny as the planning application and appeal process, which has included a site visit undertaken by myself and scheme specific evidence. For these reasons, the Call for Sites submission attracts very limited weight.

The proposed development is not in accordance with the aforementioned policies of the LDP. As set out above, the Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and the appellant has put forward an unchallenged position of 2.7 years. I have no reason to come to a different conclusion. Therefore, the provisions of paragraph 11d) of the Framework are engaged. Footnote 8 confirms in these circumstances, the policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed to be out-of-date. Paragraph 232 of the Framework confirms due weight should be given to policies, according to their consistency with the Framework.

In relation to matters of character and appearance, paragraphs 135 and 139 seek to ensure development adds to the overall quality of the area and sets out that development which is not well designed should be refused. Paragraph 187b) seeks to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. In addition, paragraph 212 attributes great weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Policies S1, D1 and D3 of the LDP are therefore consistent with the Framework in this regard. On this basis, and the various harms identified, the conflict with these policies carries significant weight against the development.

The adopted spatial strategy is failing to meet the local housing needs of the area. The development plan is not meeting paragraph 61 of the Framework which sets out the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and ensuring a sufficient amount of land can come forward. As such, conflict with [name] S1, S2 and S8 insofar as they relate to the location of development and spatial strategy carries limited weight against the proposal.

Overall, the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the above-mentioned paragraphs of the Framework.

Paragraph 11d)i) of the Framework sets out that planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 confirms that this includes policies relating to designated heritage assets. In this case the harm to the setting of the CA and the contribution it makes to its significance would amount to a strong reason for refusing the development. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The other material considerations, which I have previously identified in my public benefits balance, carry moderate positive weight in favour of the proposed development for the reasons given and would not outweigh these harms.

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 it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.