Appeal 6005447

The appeal is dismissed.

The application is in outline, with access to be considered at this stage. Accordingly, landscaping, layout, scale and appearance are reserved for future application. I have determined the appeal on this basis. Plans have been provided showing a layout of nine dwellings, and an alternative layout of eight dwellings. However, given that the application is in outline, I have treated these plans as being only illustrative.

Since the determination of the application by the Council, the Marnhull Neighbourhood Plan (NP) has been formally adopted, being ‘made’ on 21 April

It therefore now forms part of the Development Plan. I shall take the NP and its policies into account in my decision.

The appeal submission includes a [name] (UU), dated 17 February

This seeks to secure planning obligations of at least two of the proposed units being [name] and [name] (SBCH) plots, and two units being [name]. I will return to this matter below.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the setting of [name], a [name] listed building.

The appeal site consists of fields on the edge of the village of Marnhull. [name] (the Farmhouse) is a late C17 or early C18 dwelling, which adjoins the site of the proposal. A public footpath crosses the appeal site, from which the Farmhouse can be seen. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that I have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building and its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest.

The Farmhouse faces towards the appeal site, as well as its garden and the eponymous pond. Although subject to alterations, extensions and changes, it has an attractive design typical of a vernacular farmhouse. In the context of this appeal, the significance of the building is its age, appearance and setting as a traditional farmhouse.

Historically, the area around the Farmhouse consisted of fields with only sporadic development. More recently, residential cul-de-sacs have been developed nearby, as the village has expanded. These include [address] to the rear and side of the Farmhouse. The Farmhouse had a range of outbuildings, most of which were lost prior to listing. It may have ceased being part of a farm towards the end of the nineteenth century, and it is unclear whether the Farmhouse ever had a functional link to the appeal site.

Nevertheless, the site proposed for development currently consists of part of an open, undeveloped field. As such, it provides one of few remaining tangible connections between the Farmhouse and its historic agricultural use and appearance. Despite an extension to the Farmhouse garden some years ago, the countryside formed by the appeal site and its agrarian nature makes a positive contribution to the character and setting of the listed building.

The proposal is for ‘up to’ nine dwellings on the site, and so could be developed for fewer than this number. The vehicular access would be located at the opposite end of the site from the Farmhouse. Even so, residential development would inherently result in additional, appreciable built form on the site. Domestic paraphernalia, together with the associated gardens, parked cars and hard surfaced areas, would add to its harmful, suburbanising effects.

As such, the proposal would undermine and erode the rural, agrarian character of the site, thus detracting from the setting and significance of the Farmhouse. For the same reasons, the development would significantly diminish appreciation of the listed building and its setting when seen from the public footpath running through the site, as well as from another footpath nearby.

In the language of paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the harm caused would be less than substantial. However, the proposal would result in a reasonably high level of less-than-substantial harm. In accordance with Framework paragraph 212, I give great weight to the harm to the setting and significance of the listed building as a designated heritage asset.

The appellant has referred to recently approved planning applications for new housing around the village, including an outline approval further along [address]. That said, some of these examples did not result in harm to heritage assets or their settings. Others involved much larger numbers of dwellings than those proposed here, and/or a low level of heritage harm. As a result, I can draw little comparison between these cases and the appeal development.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would harm the setting of [name]. Policy 5 of the North Dorset District Local Plan (NDLP), adopted January 2016, provides the relevant Development Plan policy. It makes clear that great weight will be given to the conservation of a heritage asset, with clear and convincing justification being necessary to justify any harm. It also makes clear that harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The policy is consistent with the Framework and its paragraph 215, which makes a similar requirement. I shall undertake this balancing exercise below.

There is no dispute that the Council cannot demonstrate a sufficient supply of deliverable housing sites. Even so, the policies in the Framework that protect assets of particular importance, in this case the designated heritage asset, provide a strong reason for refusing the proposal in this case. It follows that the tilted balance of Framework paragraph 11(d) is not engaged. This is the case regardless of whether paragraph 14 of the Framework applies, following the making of the NP. The proposal before me is therefore different from the appeal at Buckingham1. Nevertheless, it would make a positive addition of up to nine dwellings to the supply of housing in the area.

The UU seeks to make provision for at least two of the dwellings to be SBCH units, and for two [name]. In respect of SBCH, the site owners would sell the serviced plots to individual self-builders. However, as drafted, the UU places obligations on the current owners which are intended for the self-builder occupiers, for example in respect of being their sole or principal dwelling. Furthermore, the need for and absence of a compliance process prior to plot disposal, to ensure that purchasers satisfy the SBCH eligibility criteria, is not disputed. Accordingly, SBCH status would be difficult if not impossible to enforce.

The Council has identified other legal concerns, such as how [name] eligibility requirements would be secured, and the absence of a clawback mechanism for [name] (BNG) if genuine SBCH housing were not delivered. Nonetheless, even if the UU does not need to include a clawback, no substantive response to the other legal concerns has been provided. I therefore have misgivings about the UU and its measures in respect of SBCH and [name]. Despite this, I give moderate positive weight to the additional up to nine units that would be delivered by the proposal.

Future occupiers of the dwellings would make positive social and economic contributions. It would have other economic benefits, for example to local businesses and the building industry. The proposal would make more efficient use of land, on a site that is close to the services and facilities of the village. It would also result in ecological benefits, and is intended to provide BNG at a much greater amount than the minimum requirement. I give these matters additional, limited positive weight.

Given the weight that I have attributed to the benefits of the proposal, individually and cumulatively they would not outweigh the harm caused to the setting of the designated heritage asset, to which I have given great weight. It follows that the public benefits of the proposal would not provide sufficient justification for it. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with NDLP policy 5, and the test of Framework paragraph 215 is not met. For the same reasons, the proposal would not accord with the Act. 1 APP/J0405/W/25/3372565

For the reasons given above, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, and the weight I give to them, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.