Appeal 6005501

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings, and erection of replacement self-build dwelling and garage with associated car parking and landscaping at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00233/APP subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of development has been amended from that on the application form to provide a more detailed description of development from the original ‘replacement dwelling.’ I am satisfied that the description of development in the heading above and used on the Council’s decision notice provides a more accurate description of the development proposed.

The appellant has submitted several amended plans following the Council’s refusal of the scheme to address design concerns. These alterations have removed the chimney and amended the garage design and adjacent stepped access. Several technical notes relating to trees, ecology and [name] and an updated Heritage Impact Assessment have also been submitted as new evidence as part of the appeal.

I have considered the plans and additional statements in the context of the Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 judgement. As the amended plans make minor changes to the design of the dwelling and the technical notes provide further information on areas of assessment some of which did not form part of the Council’s reasons for refusal, I have considered whether accepting the information would cause procedural unfairness to interested parties. One letter of representation was received by the Council during the application, and no further comments have been received following notification of the appeal. The Council has acknowledged the submission of the amended plans and technical notes within their evidence and have provided comment on them.

As the amended plans and supporting technical notes do not make a substantive change to the proposal, their acceptance would not unfairly deprive those entitled to be consulted on the application, the opportunity to make a representation. My decision is therefore based on the amended plans and has taken into consideration the supporting technical notes.

The appeal site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and would be a replacement dwelling. It is uncontested by the Council, that the replacement building is in the same use and would not be materially larger than the one it replaces. The Council therefore finds that the proposed development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It therefore concludes that the proposal meets the exception in Paragraph 154 (d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the requirements of Policy S4 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP). I see no reason to disagree with this conclusion.

The site is within the Zone of Influence of the Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC). However, as a replacement dwelling, the Council have concluded that the proposal would be screened out of an Appropriate Assessment, and I see no reason to disagree with this finding.

A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) is before me to secure: the notice of commencement of development, payment of monitoring fee, self-build housing, carbon neutrality, Passivhaus standard, access to the site for educational purposes, use of locally sourced materials and local labour during construction and off-site biodiversity net gain.

Taking the above matters into consideration, the main issues are: • whether the existing dwelling should be regarded as a NDHA and if so what weight to ascribe to its significance; and • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, giving special regard to its effect on the National Landscape.

‘ [site address] ’ is a two storey, rendered Arts and Crafts building, constructed in the late 19th Century, and designed by architects Smith and Brewer. The building was originally designed as an ancillary building to support the main dwelling and associated farm complex at ‘[name],’ as can been seen from the original drawings. However, the main dwelling of ‘[name] was demolished after 2015 and its original landholding split. The property also has several outbuildings that are located near, but away from the dwelling, within the site curtilage. The planning history highlights several planning applications relating to changes to the property, primarily from 2005 onwards.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) defines a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) as “buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified by plan-making bodies as having a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, but which do not meet the criteria for designated heritage assets.”

The Council has identified the appeal building as a NDHA through the original planning application and has now formally adopted the building onto Buckinghamshire’s Local Heritage List. The dwelling’s significance derives from the property’s architectural significance which formed part of a larger arts and crafts farmstead, and as an uncommon arts and crafts building which is not typical of the area.

The dwelling has undergone considerable change and expansion since its original construction. Whilst the ‘original’ core of the building remains evident, the later additions are a pastiche of the original design and relatively haphazard. This created a jumble of rooms, particularly on the first floor, and differing floor levels both at ground and first floor. Furthermore, little historic fabric remains and many of the doors, windows and shutters are modern interpretations of the original design. Nonetheless, and despite the changes that have taken place, the building retains sufficient heritage significance to warrant its status as a NDHA.

Policy BE1 of the VALP identifies that, amongst other things, proposals which affect the “significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be properly considered, weighing the direct and indirect impacts upon the asset and its setting”. Paragraph 216 of the Framework requires that the effect of a development proposal on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset be taken into account. It states that, “In weighing applications...a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.”

In assessing the significance of the NDHA, I have taken into consideration the degree of change made to the building, which has materially eroded the original form of the building and changed its appearance from being an ancillary support structure to a new severed, separate dwelling. Furthermore, due to the demolition and replacement of ‘[name], the appeal building has lost its functional link to the wider farmstead setting, fundamentally altering its historic context. Therefore, whilst the building retains some interesting architectural features, its overall significance has been diminished to an extent that it is only of modest historic and architectural significance.

Despite affording modest weight to the significance of the NDHA, the proposed development would involve the demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings and their replacement with a new single storey dwelling. As such, the proposed development would not conserve a NDHA, which contributes to the area’s local character and identity. Accordingly, I find conflict with Policy BE1 of the VALP, which, amongst other things, seek to conserve, and where possible, enhance heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, including their setting.

The appeal property is located within the open countryside with the nearest settlement being Aldbury, around 2km from the site. The site is located on a private and dead-end lane off [site address] and is well screened by existing trees and hedges. The replacement dwelling ‘[name] sits adjacent to the appeal site and is located to the southwest, constructed after it gained planning permission in

Both ‘[name] and the appeal property ‘ [site address] ’ are of individual design with ‘[name] being visually prominent and of Georgian design. Unlike the appeal property, ‘[name],’ is highly visible from public vantage points.

As the appeal property is adjacent to other dwellings, it is not an isolated home in the countryside. The property does not mirror the scale or vernacular of dwellings locally and is not typical of residential development located in Aldbury. Nonetheless, the existing dwelling and its plot, make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed replacement dwelling would be situated in approximately the same position as the existing property. The dwelling would be primarily single storey, covering more of the appeal site. New landscaped gardens would be provided to the front of the proposed dwelling, which is currently a driveway and a new driveway would be accessed from the existing access further along [site address] .

The proposal would see an increase in floor space of around 7% with the built form of the dwelling being composed into two inter linked curved structures. The replacement dwelling has been designed based on a walled garden concept that sits within the site’s topography, and its low profile means it would sit comfortably within the landscape. The dwelling would have windows that would allow glances through the dwelling from the front to the rear garden and all the windows have been designed to limit light spill. Covered patios, designed as part of the dwelling, would address solar heating and cooling.

The amended plans removing the chimney and changing the garage and adjacent staired access to the rear of the property, enable the proposal to maintain its low-lying and subdued appearance.

The property would be constructed from brick with a flat, green roof. The submitted colour visualisations indicate a horizontal banding of vertically laid brickwork around the top of the dwelling. This adds variation to the design and helps to reduce the perceived scale of the building. The use of strong boundary walls is also a locally used landscape component.

The flat elevations shown on the plans do not show the intricate detail of the curved design which would prevent the building being read as a dominant form. Due to the design and positioning on site, no individual viewpoint, on or off-site would enable the volume of the dwelling to be perceived as a whole. Consequently, when the elevations are assessed alongside the landscape plans, the replacement dwelling would respond to, sit comfortably within, and integrate effectively with the verdant character of the site and the wider surrounding area.

The garage block would have limited visual exposure being read as an integrated part of the property. It would only be seen as a garage approaching the site from the north or when directly in front of the garage. Furthermore, its siting as an integral part of the main dwelling and forms part of the overall walled garden concept.

Consequently, the development would positively contribute to the overall quality of the area, would be visually attractive and innovative in design. The proposal would therefore be of high-quality design, achieving an important objective of the Framework which seeks the creation of high-quality, beautiful, and sustainable buildings. As such, the proposal would establish a strong sense of place. The proposed soft landscaping would assist in respecting and enhancing its rural setting. Accordingly, the replacement dwelling, whilst different in design to its neighbours, would respect and complement the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings.

The site is within the Chilterns National Landscape (previously referred to as the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). I have given great weight to the duty imposed by Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to have regard to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes.

The site sits within the open countryside, amongst a small cluster of rural buildings. The surrounding landscape is relatively flat, with rising land to a ridge to the northeast. Local farmland consists of both pastoral and arable fields, of various sizes, with clearly defined field boundaries formed by hedgerows and occasional tree groupings. Woodland areas are seen to the immediate south and west. A public right of way is in an elevated position approximately 400m from the appeal site from which the appeal property is partially visible.

As the proposal would have a low profile and would be nestled within its landscape setting, the scheme would result in only local landscape effects. As such, the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, I consider that the proposed development would conserve and enhance the National Landscape.

Accordingly, the proposed development would comply with Policies BE2, NE3 and NE4 of the VALP. These policies, amongst other things, seek new development that respects and complements the characteristics of the site and its surroundings, the landscape character, the local distinctiveness and vernacular character of the locality and public views; and conserves and enhances the Chilterns National Landscape qualities, character, tranquillity, and remoteness.

A completed UU has been submitted as part of the appeal. The UU also has a ‘blue pencil clause’ enabling me to omit those parts of the Agreement that may be deemed to not meet the required Framework tests.

The Council considers that the matters within the UU go beyond what is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. However, having tested each element of the UU, I am satisfied that each would either secure mitigation or consist of a material benefit that weighs in favour of the proposal.

The proposal is for a self-build dwelling. Paragraph 73(b), of the Framework, supports small sites to come forward for self-build and custom-build housing. The Framework also supports the delivery of a variety of land coming forward to meet the needs of groups with specific housing requirements including for those people wishing to commission or build their own homes.

The submitted UU would deliver the dwelling as a self-build property. This includes the necessary elements for the proposal to comply with the definition of the [name] and Custom Housing Act (SBCH). It also provides a three-year minimum occupancy, which whilst not required by the SBCH Act, would provide a useful additional requirement to ensure it is occupied as such for a prescribed period.

Based on the submitted evidence, I am satisfied that the UU before me would provide the dwelling for the purposes of self-build housing in accordance with the SBCH Act. This is the most appropriate mechanism in which to secure the proposed development as a self-build property and would be necessary to apply the exemption under [name] (BNG) requirements.

BNG is required under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). Under the statutory framework for BNG, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met. One of the exemptions from BNG is for self- build housing.

As the proposed development is for self-build housing which can be secured through the accompanying UU, the proposal is subsequently exempt from the requirements. However, the accompanying [name]: Ecology Appeal Statement has undertaken a BNG matrix to illustrate that the proposed development would in any event achieve a biodiversity net gain despite the development’s exemption.

The BNG assessment matrix demonstrates that the scheme would achieve a net gain of 0.79 habitat units (equivalent to 50.21%) and 0.09 hedgerow units (equivalent to 16.77%), through the enhancement of existing habitats and provision of new planting. This would be achieved through the enhancement of off-site habitats adjacent to the site and within the same ownership. This would be secured through the UU and therefore weighs in favour of the proposed development.

The UU proposes a financial contribution towards the Council’s chosen carbon offsetting scheme if the dwelling cannot meet the Whole Life Zero Carbon Building within 30 years of occupation. This would accord with the Framework’s climate change objectives and the Council’s objective within Policy C3 of the VALP for new development to seek to achieve carbon emissions reductions. This is not a mandatory requirement of the policy in this instance but would be strongly supported and acts as a benefit in favour of the proposal.

A clause relating to providing access to the site for educational purposes is included within the UU. This would provide the ability for students of all ages to access the site during the construction phase; access to the site post occupation for the purposes of the National Garden Scheme for a minimum of five years and the requirement for the architectural drawings to be deposited with the Royal Institute of [name]. These requirements would fail to meet the Framework tests as they are not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. A further clause relating to the use of locally sourced materials and local labour during construction is also not considered necessary as the VALP does not contain policies supporting or requiring the use of local labour and the requirement is not necessary to make the development acceptable.

The submitted [name] also addresses bats, which were found to be present through the bat emergence surveys undertaken. The Note identifies proportionate and appropriate mitigation in the form of replacement roosting opportunities on site and within the replacement dwelling. The Council’s Ecologist has reviewed the information and is satisfied that the tests have been met to achieve a Natural England licence. Based on the information submitted, I see no reason to disagree with this assertion, and the requirements can be suitably addressed with the imposition of a suitable condition.

The Framework determines that, in weighing the effect of development on an NDHA, a balanced judgement will be required, having regard to the scale of any harm and significance of the asset.

The appeal proposal would see the full demolition of the NDHA and its replacement with a new high-quality dwelling. The appeal property is severed from the original farmstead land holding and now sits within an independent plot that now bears no relationship with the original farmstead or its replacement dwelling. Alterations have also considerably altered the original building in a disjointed and haphazard manner, leading to an array of floor levels throughout the dwelling. Subsequently, its overall significance has been lessened to an extent where the NDHA is only of modest historic and architectural significance.

Consequently, whilst the proposed development would see the total loss of the NDHA, given the reduced significance of the property as an NDHA, I calibrate that the overall harm would be modest.

Set against the harm identified, there would be social and economic benefits associated with the proposal. The self-build element of the proposal would also provide support in favour of the proposal. The proposal would deliver an energy efficient dwelling that would provide for the requirements of modern-day living. The design and energy saving proposals of the development would support the climate change and carbon reduction objectives of the VALP and the Framework. Furthermore, economic benefits during construction would also ensue. The proposal would also provide significant biodiversity enhancements adjacent to the site, to which I afford significant further weight.

In applying a balanced judgement, whilst the demolition of the existing dwelling would see the total loss of the NDHA, its historic and architectural significance is reduced for the reasons outlined above and would result in modest harm only. The proposed replacement dwelling is of high-quality design which would significantly enhance its immediate setting, be energy efficient and would be sensitive to the local area which forms part of the CNL. The proposed development would meet the requirements of day-to-day living, would be a self-build dwelling, and would provide on and off-site biodiversity benefits. Cumulatively, these benefits attract considerable weight, which outweighs the moderate harm that would occur through the proposed demolition of the NDHA.

The Framework states that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other aspects. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council against the Framework and where necessary I have amended the wording in the interests of clarity and enforceability.

To ensure certainty and clarity, I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and approved plans.

As the existing dwelling is a NDHA and will be lost as a result of this proposal, it is necessary to require that a programme of building recording be undertaken prior to demolition. Whilst the replacement dwelling cannot be constructed without demolition of the existing dwelling, it is necessary to require a schedule of construction to ensure that the proposed dwelling is built after, and immediately following, the demolition of the NDHA. A condition requiring the submission of a Tree Protection Plan is also necessary to ensure that the existing trees on site are not harmed during construction.

In relation to bats and in accordance with the results of the submitted [name]: Ecology Appeal Statement, it is necessary to condition the submission of a Natural England licence or a statement that identifies that a licence is not required prior to demolition of any of the buildings on site. I have imposed a materials condition as the success of the development will depend on the exact materials and detailing required regarding their installation and to ensure that they are appropriate for the level of high-quality design specified in relation to the CNL site and surroundings.

In order to ensure that the benefits to the scheme are achieved in line with the climate change objectives of the Framework and the VALP policies C3 ([name]), I5 (Water resources and [name]) and H6c (Accessibility), conditions requiring the submission of an energy statement (to co-exist with the UU relating to the dwelling being of Passivhaus standard), water consumption limits and that the dwelling meets the optional requirement M4(2) of Building Regulations are necessary.

A condition securing that the development is undertaken in accordance with the ecological report and the arboricultural report are also necessary to ensure that the development does not harmfully affect the existing ecology and trees on site and that any mitigation measures considered necessary are implemented in accordance with the reports.

It is also necessary to require the submission of external lighting details to mitigate the effect of the development on bats and the CNL, hard landscaping materials to ensure that the materials are appropriate for drainage purposes and their effect on the CNL and to ensure that the soft landscaping works are undertaken in accordance with the approved plan. A condition relating to the proposed car parking, access and turning areas is necessary in the interests of highway safety.

Given the proposal’s contemporary design and that further extensions under permitted development could reduce the quality of the development, it is necessary to remove permitted development rights with respect to [name] to E (inclusive).

The Council suggested several conditions that I have not imposed as they are not necessary and do not meet the required tests. The pre-commencement condition relating to existing and proposed levels is not necessary. This is because whilst the proposed dwelling would have a larger floor plate, it would be single storey and would therefore have a lesser effect on residential amenity than the existing dwelling.

The dwelling is proposed as a self-build property. The submitted UU secures this requirement, and a condition is not therefore necessary. The requirement for an electric vehicle charging point is also not necessary as this is covered by Building Regulations and would therefore be a duplication. Details of cycle storage and bin storage was also suggested however, the dwelling would have sufficient space in which to provide secure and covered bicycle storage, including within the proposed garage, and bin storage. Therefore, details are not required.

The Council also suggested a condition requiring the submission of both hard and soft landscape works. However, a detailed landscaping plan forms part of the submitted ecological enhancement plan (0268-16-01A). On this basis, the condition requiring the submission of soft landscaping details is not necessary.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. As a result, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: [name]-01 P1 Location Plan, [name]-02 P1 Proposed Site Plan, [name]-03 P2 [name], [name]-04 P2 [name], [name]-05 P2 [name], [name]-07 P1 Proposed Buildings Section; 0628-11-01-[name], 0628-11-02-[name], 0628-16-01-A Ecological Enhancement and Figure 4 Bat Mitigation Plan.

No development shall take place until a programme of building recording and analysis has been completed to Level 3 as per the guidance note ‘[name] – a guide to good recording practice’ written by Historic England, so as to create a record of the non-designated heritage asset which is going to be lost as a result of the proposed development. Upon the completion of the record, it shall be submitted to the [name]. Confirmation of this shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to development commencing. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The demolition of the non-designated heritage asset shall not commence until a written schedule for the commencement of construction of the approved replacement dwelling has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The construction of the replacement dwelling shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

No development shall take place until an updated Tree Protection Plan (TPP) in accordance with current [name] 5837 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The TPP shall include: a) Detailed plans showing location of the protective fencing including any additional ground protection whether temporary or permanent. b) An overlay of proposed services and utilities, where these are close to [name]. c) Details of all proposed [name], including root pruning, as outlined in current [name] 5837 guidance (shall be carried out in accordance with current [name] 3998); and d) Locations for the storage of materials and the siting of skips and working spaces. The area surrounding each tree/hedge within the approved protective fencing shall remain undisturbed during the course of the works, and in particular in these areas: there shall be no changes in ground levels; no materials or plant shall be stored; no buildings or temporary buildings shall be erected or stationed unless these are elements of the agree Tree Protection Plan, no materials or waste shall be burnt nor within 20 metres of any retained tree; and no drain runs or other trenches shall be dug or otherwise created. The development shall thereafter take place in accordance with the approved Tree Protection Plan.

No development shall take place until either: a) a licence issued by Natural England pursuant to Regulation 53 of The Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) authorising the specified activity/development to go ahead; or b) a statement in writing from a suitably qualified ecologist to the effect that they do not consider that the specified activity/development will require a licence has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details.

No development above slab level shall take place until details and samples of all the external facing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved sample details.

No development above slab level, with the exception of demolition, shall take place until an energy statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The energy statement shall detail the ways in which the development will achieve greater efficiency in the use of natural resources, including measures to minimise energy use, improve water efficiency and promote waste minimisation and recycling. It shall also illustrate how the proposed development incorporates the following energy hierarchy: reducing energy use, in particular by the use of sustainable design and construction measures; supplying energy efficiently and giving priority to decentralised energy supply; making use of renewable energy; and making use of allowable solutions. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved energy statement.

Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details of the lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include location, height, types and direction of light sources and intensity of illumination. The external lighting shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details. Any lighting which is so installed shall not thereafter be altered other than for routine maintenance which does not change its details.

The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the [name] ([name], December 2025) and the [name] (AAe, January 2025). Any mitigation, protection and enhancement measures identified within the report shall be implemented prior to occupation.

Prior to occupation, details of hard landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials and boundary treatments where relevant. Any hard surfacing forming the driveway hereby permitted as shown on approved drawings [name]-03 P2 [name] and [name]-02 P1 Proposed Site Plan shall be made of porous materials, or provision shall be made to direct run-off water from the hard surface to a permeable or porous area or surface within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. These works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the development and thereafter maintained.

The soft landscape works shown on drawing number 0268-16-01A shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details within the first planting season following occupation of the development or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner. The soft landscaping shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

The scheme for parking, manoeuvring, and garaging indicated on approved drawings [name]-03 P2 [name] and [name]-02 P1 Proposed Site Plan shall be laid out prior to the occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained as such in perpetuity and shall not be used for any other purpose.

The dwelling hereby approved shall be built and fitted out so as not to exceed the optional water consumption standard of 110 litres per person per day, as set out in [name] of the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended).

The dwelling hereby approved shall be constructed and fitted out to comply with the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended) optional requirement M4(2) 'accessible and adaptable' as a minimum prior to occupation. Such provision shall be maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name] inclusive of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken.