Appeal 6005517

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by The Silverwood Partnership against Somerset Council. This application is subject to a separate decision.

Following the creation of Somerset Council through the amalgamation of Mendip District Council with others in the county, the existing development plans for the now amalgamated former council areas of Somerset remain in place.

The proposal is for permission in principle (“PiP”). Planning Practice Guidance (“the PPG”) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has two stages: the first stage, permission in principle, establishes whether a site is suitable in terms of location, land use and the amount of the development permitted1.

The second technical details consent (“TDC”) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages. Consequently, all detailed drawings provided with the application are considered indicative and I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Evidence has been provided of an appeal decision2 to dismiss and to refuse full planning permission at the same site. The location and land use are the same, and in this respect, I deem the earlier appeal to be a material consideration. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-012-20180615 2 Ref: APP/E3335/W/25/3364308

Notwithstanding, in respect of the amount of development, there are marked differences. Specifically, the earlier appeal related to the non-determination of a full planning application3 for the erection of 24 dwellings of varying sizes, of a greater density and included affordable housing, whilst the current appeal proposal is for up to 9 single storey detached open market dwellings. In relation to this PiP appeal, matters relating to the amount of development, is assessed on its own merits and particular facts.

All parties accept that the appeal site is located immediately adjacent to, but outside the settlement boundary of Beckington. Consequently, Policies CP1 and CP2 of the Mendip District Local Plan Part 1 adopted 2014 (“the MDLP1”) sets out the local development strategy and their relevance to the location of the appeal site.

The main reasons for refusal are: • whether the location of the site is suitable for the proposal, having regard to the local development strategy; • whether there is an effect on the character and appearance of the area, including landscape setting; and • whether the setting of the adjacent [name] listed buildings would be preserved.

The acceptability of Beckington as a sustainable location for residential development is not disputed. However, the earlier appeal addressed the hierarchical spatial strategy for the area, and it was identified that there were no exceptional circumstances which support development in the countryside as set out in Policy CP4 of the MDLP1. In respect of this appeal, I have not received evidence from the Council, in accordance with “The planning appeal: procedural guide” 4, that the position has changed including site allocations as set out in Mendip District Council Local Plan Part 2 post [name] 2022. Consequently, the site therefore remains unsuitable for the proposal and therefore contrary to Policies CP1 and CP2 of the MDLP.

In terms of site description, excepting some minor changes in gating and immature peripheral planting, the site remains as described in the earlier appeal. In addition to visiting the site and to ensure that I was able to appreciate fully the landscape, I viewed the site from a number of locations in the surrounding area. Although some of the viewing points were distant from the site, the location for the development is prominent, being a plateau along the ridge of the hill, and presents as open countryside with uninterrupted views surrounding Beckington.

The were clear views of the existing properties and a variety of boundary treatments forming the defined edge of the village. The proposal seeks to introduce up to 9 single storey dwellings, as opposed to the 24 two storey 3 Ref: reference 2024/2309/FUL 4 Late documents – paragraph 9.4.8 buildings subject of the previously mentioned application. Notwithstanding that there was not an expressed objection, from the Council’s landscape officer to permission in principle, any detailed building or landscape design would be a matter for the TDC stage. While the scale and quantum of development would be less than the previous scheme, it would nevertheless still encroach into the undeveloped and open character of the countryside. It would thereby significantly alter and therefore result in harm to the current openness of the ridgeline of the Frome River Valley, which currently supports very few established trees.

Consequently, the proposed development would be contrary to Policies DP1, DP4 and DP7 of the MDLP1 that requires all development proposals to contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness, minimise and / or mitigate negative impacts on Mendip’s landscapes, and are of a scale appropriate to the local context.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (“the Act”) requires special regard to be given to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Regarding the significance of the setting of the listed buildings, in common with the earlier appeal I have considered their special interest and significance collectively, referring to them hereon as the [name] group. Individually these heritage assets are listed as follows: • [address] and garden wall5 adjacent to No. 21 ([address]), [site address] - Grade II Listed. The listing notes the probable date of construction, the architectural features and construction materials of all referenced structures, and the extent of the garden wall; • Clifford House6, 21 [site address] – Grade II Listed. The listing notes the probable date of construction, the architectural features and construction materials and states that the building forms an unusual group with No 23 [site address] ; and • Bountrol7 (also known as [address]) and adjacent garden wall, 23 [site address] – Grade II Listed. The listing notes the probable date of construction, the architectural features and construction materials, the extent of the garden wall and reiterates the relationship to 21 [site address] .

From the evidence before me, the special interest and significance, as far as it relates to the appeal scheme, primarily derives from its architectural value. The buildings are located off the former turnpike road, and evidence has been provided relating to the history of the group, including previous uses. Additionally, the group has a historical significance due to the scale of the walled garden areas which contribute to its setting. Furthermore, the visual relationship between the heritage assets, the proximity of the former turnpike road and the openness of the wider landscape, forms part of the wider setting of the [name] group. All these elements contribute positively to the special interest and significance of the

Turning to the built form proposed for the appeal site, the appellant has indicated that the proposed dwellings would be set back, some distance, from the curtilage of [name] group. Notwithstanding, this being the first stage PiP, only the amount of development is under consideration. The final design, layout and landscaping proposals would be addressed at the TDC stage. Nevertheless, the proposal would reduce the extent of intervisibility from, between and of the heritage assets and their setting. Given the distant views previously mentioned, the proposal regardless of the amount, is likely to detract from the openness of the wider landscape and thereby harm the setting of the heritage assets.

Having had special regard to the desirability of preserving the buildings or their settings or any feature of architectural or historic interest which they possess, I conclude that the proposal would not preserve the setting of the [name] group, resulting in harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets. The level of harm in this case would be less than substantial. This conclusion is not disputed by the main parties and, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”), I attribute great weight to the conservation of these heritage assets. However, as with the earlier appeal, the magnitude of this harm is not agreed.

The proposal would result in a reduction in how and from where the designated heritage assets and their settings would be appreciated from, in terms of both public and private locations. Considering the contribution a setting may make to the significance of a heritage asset may vary over time and that local planning authorities may need to consider the implication of cumulative change8, it is my judgement that the less than substantial harm would be moderate in magnitude due to the degree of change. However, any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, and I will return to this matter in the heritage and planning balance later in this decision.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would not preserve the setting of the adjacent [name] listed buildings. It would be contrary to Policy DP3 of the MDLP1 insofar as it would fail to preserve and, where appropriate enhance the significance and setting of the district’s heritage assets, especially those elements which contribute to the distinct identity of Mendip. Other considerations

The earlier appeal set out the position in regard to the MDLP1. However, in respect of a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites in accordance with the Framework, the latest position has been identified as being 2.27 years. This figure has not been disputed, and the appellant provided a comprehensive assessment of the housing supply in and around the area. Consequently, the quantum shortfall is significant. As such, up to 9 dwellings resulting from the proposal would make a meaningful contribution in supporting the Government’s objectives of significantly boosting the supply of housing and delivering economic growth9. Whilst the housing land supply within Somerset is low, as evidenced by the main parties, the number of new dwellings built or granted consent in Beckington has exceeded the 8 Planning Practice Guidance - Paragraph: 013 [name]: 18a-013-20190723 9 As set out in a [name] by the Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, delivered and published 30 July 2024 requirement set out in Policy CP4 of the MDLP1. Whilst the housing requirement is not a maximum figure, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is set out in paragraph 11 d of the Framework.

Policy CP1 of the MDLP1 sets out an overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development, by directing new homes towards the key settlements in the district which, in combination with policies CP2 and CP4, reflects the Framework’s approach to the proportionate distribution of housing. On this basis, while I attach significant weight to the principle of these policies, this is reduced to moderate in light of the housing land supply status.

Although the need for new homes places additional pressure on the release of land such as the appeal site, this does not alter the Framework’s approach to achieving well-designed places together with conserving and enhancing the natural landscape. Policy DP1, supported by Policy DP7 and the Design SPD10, and Policy DP4 of the MDLP1 promote good design including the avoidance of the significant degradation of the landscape, which is consistent with the Framework in this regard. As a result, I give these policies significant weight.

Policy DP3 is wholly consistent with the Framework’s need to preserve and, where appropriate, enhance the significance and setting of a heritage asset, in accordance with the Act, thereby attracting substantial weight in my decision.

The proposal would provide up to 9 single storey dwellings and would lead to associated social benefits from increasing the amount of housing stock in a location with access to public facilities and services. There would be economic benefits arising during the construction of the development, although such benefits would be short term. Long term benefits in the form of support of local services and facilities would arise from future residents. This would be a moderate benefit within the context of what the main parties agree is a significant shortfall in the availability of housing sites District wide and given the ability of the site to be built out quickly. Overall, given the number of dwellings proposed, the social and economic benefits would be moderate.

Regarding the environmental benefits in respect of landscape, ecology and a low-carbon ethos, these are not matters subject to this stage of PiP and would be subject to detailed submissions at the TDC stage. Therefore, I give these benefits little weight.

The appeal site is located within the Zone of Influence of the Mells Valley Special Area of Conservation (“SAC”) and the Bath and [name], [name] afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2007, as amended. If the circumstances leading to the grant of permission in principle had been present, I would have considered the effect of the proposal on these SACs. However, as I am dismissing the appeal it is not necessary for me to consider this matter further. 10 Design and Amenity of New Development Supplementary Planning Document ([name]).

I have been referred to several other appeal decisions11 and details related to planning applications12, at a time when a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites could not be demonstrated by the respective local planning authority. As these relate to larger schemes, some significantly so, or sought outline planning permission, and / or where it was concluded that the proposals would not harm nearby heritage assets or were dismissed due to environmental impact, they are not directly comparable with the proposal or the circumstances of the case before me.

The appellant has included in their evidence a letter from [name], the content of which may be new information not previously considered. Notwithstanding, it was clear from the Council’s report that any matter relating to the foul drainage situation in Beckington could be dealt with at the TDC stage should the appeal be allowed. Consequently, no further consideration will be given to this matter.

The appellant notes that there is a lack of technical evidence, either at the time of the refusal or in support of the Councils position in regard to this appeal. However, such lack of technical evidence does not weigh in favour of the grant of planning permission in principle in this case.

There have been a considerable number of representations both in support and in objection to the proposed development. I have had regard to various matters, other than those addressed elsewhere, including a reduction in traffic through the village. Given the conclusions above, none would affect the appeal outcome, and as a consequence it is not necessary for me to consider them further.

I have found that the proposal would conflict with the local development strategy, would harm the character and appearance of the area, including its landscape setting, and would not preserve the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. Consequently, I have found that the proposal is contrary to Policies CP1, CP2, CP4, DP1, DP3, DP4 and DP7 of the MDLP1.

Regarding the significance of the setting of the [name] group, the proposal would result in ‘less than substantial’ harm although I consider that the magnitude of this harm would be moderate. The failure to preserve the setting of these designated heritage assets carries considerable importance and weight, consistent with the statutory duty in the Act and reiterated within the Framework. Whilst public benefits would be derived from the proposal, the totality of those outlined above do not outweigh the level of harm identified to the significance of the designated heritage assets. Therefore, no clear and convincing justification to this harm has been demonstrated.

Considering the level of harm and the outcome of the heritage balance, I conclude that there is a strong reason for refusing the development based on the application of the Framework’s policies that protect assets of particular importance, including designated heritage assets13. As such, the proposal does not benefit from the Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development. 11 APP/W/21/3285355, APP/W/22/3306827, APP/W/24/3337357 & APP/W/25/3352740 12 Ref: 2021/1675/EOUT, 2024/0579/OUT & 2025/0276/OUT 13 The Framework footnote 7

I conclude that the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and any material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, do not indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons set out above, having regard to all relevant matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.