Appeal 6005493

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (technical details consent) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Permission in principle has previously been granted1 for up to 4 dwellings on part of the current appeal site. However, the Council advises that this was on the basis that this would be achieved via the conversion of the existing stone-built farm buildings. From the submissions made by the appellant, it does not appear likely that either the grain store or the [name] would be suitable for conversion. It is not suggested that the further [address] needed in order that the permitted 4 can be delivered. My assessment of this appeal is therefore focussed on what would be an uplift of up to 3 dwellings in comparison to what has previously been approved.

The number of dwellings was reduced from 9 to 7 during the course of the determination of the application. I therefore proceed on the basis that the proposal is for 7 dwellings and this is reflected in the description set out in the banner header above. 1 NE/24/00276/PIP

In terms of the matter which forms reason for refusal 2 and which relates to the impact on character and appearance, residential dwellings could in principle be designed to be appropriate in the context of a former farmstead. Although this would extend the extent of the residential development that would take place in land take terms, the additional buildings would be clustered close to the stone-built farm buildings, and they would replace existing agricultural buildings. I therefore see no reason why this is not a matter which could be left to consideration at technical details consent stage in this instance.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site is located outside of the settlement envelope of [site address] as defined in the development plan, and as such it is within the open countryside. Policy EN1 of the East Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2 2023 (LP) states that development will be refused for new build residential development units in locations beyond the built area of settlements. Policy EN1 does however make an exception in a case where there would be a re-use or conversion of an existing building. Therefore, in terms of any elements of the proposal that would not represent the re-use or conversion of existing buildings, there is no policy support in the development plan for such development in this location.

It would appear from the submissions that there is little confidence that the grain store and Dutch barn could be retained and converted. There is no substantive evidence or feasibility study to demonstrate that this might be possible. I am not therefore satisfied that what would ultimately take place would include a re-use or conversion of those buildings. This speaks to each of the matters of location, proposed land use and the amount of development when the proposal is assessed against the relevant development plan policies, in the sense that there is no provision in those policies for what would occur. This matter is therefore central to whether the proposal would be compliant with the development plan and could not be left to technical details consent stage.

In conclusion, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would accord with Policies 1, 11, 13, 25 and 29 of the [name] 2016 and Policies EN1, EN2 and EN3 of the LP where, taken together, they set out the strategic approach to new development and to its location.

The tilted balance set out in paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged because the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The figure is put at 4.6 years. It has not been suggested that the provisions of paragraph 11d)i) are applicable in this instance. In terms of paragraph 11d)ii), this states that planning permission should be granted 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 for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would make a contribution to boosting the supply of new homes in the face of the current housing land supply position, albeit this is a modest undersupply, and would make an effective and efficient use of land in comparison to what are said to be redundant agricultural buildings. There would be some economic benefits including during construction and then from spend in the local economy by future occupants. At technical details stage matters such as landscaping and biodiversity would be considered, and there may be a benefit in both regards too. The uplift from this proposal in comparison to that which has already been permitted via the conversion of the stone-built farm buildings would be up to 3 dwellings, and collectively these considerations offer moderate weight in favour of the proposal.

Balanced against this is the poor locational sustainability credentials of the appeal site. There are very limited services and facilities available in [site address] . The bus service referred to appears to be infrequent in terms of the number of daily services that it provides. The settlement of Oundle is not within reasonable walking distance and, without any substantive evidence to the contrary, I have significant reservations that it would be an attractive proposition for a cyclist to travel there given the nature of the road which leads to it. In any event, that form of transport would almost certainly not be viable in order to access the schools and the GP surgery which the appellant highlights are found in Oundle. There would therefore be a heavy reliance on the use of private motor vehicles to access services and facilities.

The thrust of the Framework is to focus new development on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. There is no explicit support in the Framework for new market housing in locations such as the appeal site and in the circumstances proposed, nor is there any substantive evidence as to how this proposal would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. There is also no evidence provided of a specific need for the proposed dwellings in this particular rural location. These considerations weigh significantly against the

In conclusion, I find that the harm in locational terms would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits I have identified. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not therefore apply.

The appellant suggests that there may be an opportunity to reuse or redevelop the site to provide self-build and custom housing. However, this does not appear to be a firm commitment, and they have provided no commentary on how or to what degree such provision might add support to their case. I am not persuaded that what is proposed would represent rural diversification.

They further refer to a fallback of utilising permitted development rights under Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. However, there are no details to suggest that this is an option open to them, and if the grain store and Dutch barn are not capable of conversion then it would not be.

This proposal seeks to provide 7 dwellings, which is a net increase from the 4 which has previously been approved. The appellant considers that it is in accordance with paragraph 3.5.1 of the Village Design Statement which acknowledges a need to be progressive and look to increase the size of the village. However, it remains that development which does not represent re-use or conversion is not supported by the policies of the development plan.

I acknowledge that the Council has previously accepted that 4 dwellings are acceptable on land which includes part of the current appeal site. However, such a proposal was deemed to be in accordance with the relevant policies of the

The proposal would fail to accord with the strategic policies set out in the development plan. There would as a result be a failure to accord with the development plan, taken as a whole.

There would be some benefits of the scheme, to which I have collectively afforded moderate weight, but I have found that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. Those benefits do not outweigh the conflict with the

In conclusion, I do not find that material considerations indicate that a decision should be made at variance with the development plan, and consequently the appeal should be dismissed.