Appeal 6005556

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 2 new dwellings to be developed as [name] at [site address] and Dayspring, [address], Mildenhall, Suffolk [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/24/1396/OUT, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The application is in outline with all matters other than access reserved for future consideration. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis.

The appellant has corrected the ownership certificate during the appeal. Notice of the development has been served. I am therefore satisfied that all interested parties have had the opportunity to comment.

The appeal is accompanied by a planning obligation in the form of a [name] (UU) under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to restrict the scheme as custom and self-build housing and provide financial contributions. The Council has had the opportunity to comment on this. I will return to this later in my decision.

I am also the appointed Inspector for a nearby appeal on [address] concerning a similar proposal at Land opposite 'Mandarin' and adjacent to South View1. Given the proximity of the respective sites and the similarity of the issues involved, the decisions will inevitably have some similarities. However, each development has been assessed on its individual planning merits.

The main issues are: 1 APPEAL REF: 6005559 • Whether the development would be in an appropriate location, having specific regard to housing in the countryside; • The effect of the development on the character of the area; and, • The effect of the development on the integrity of the Breckland Special Protection Area.

The appeal site is outside of a defined settlement boundary. For planning purposes, it is therefore considered to be within the countryside. Policy SP21 of the West Suffolk Local Plan 2024 – 2041 (the Local Plan) relates to housing in the countryside and sets out the criteria which must be satisfied. Its purpose is to support limited housing development in small cohesive groups of dwellings outside defined housing settlement boundaries, in order to enhance or maintain the vitality of [name] rural communities.

The appeal site sits between a row of four bungalows and a house. Further housing is present to the north of the site, including [address] and The Barn. Although the bungalows are more closely spaced than the houses to the north, all properties share a common orientation, fronting onto the road. This creates a sense of unity and continuity within the street scene despite the spacing between them. There is also a degree of intervisibility between the bungalows and the northern properties from the appeal site, allowing them to be perceived as part of a cohesive group. The limited presence of mature vegetation between the housing also further reinforces the impression of a cluster of homes when travelling along the street. The development would therefore be within a small cohesive group of seven or more existing houses, fronting an existing highway and would satisfy part a. of Policy SP21.

Given that the appeal site is between housing and there is further housing along the street, the development would not result in isolated homes within the countryside, as it would not be far away from people or buildings. [site address] is the nearest settlement to the appeal site. It is classified as a ‘local service centre’ in the settlement hierarchy defined under Policy SP13 of the Local Plan. These settlements typically have a smaller range of services but can still meet some needs of other nearby smaller settlements, as explained within the supporting text to Policy SP13.

Cycling would be an alternative to walking or using a private car to reach [site address] and other settlements, but this would not be suitable for all. However, there is also a bus stop that can be reached by walking along [address] to Holmsey Green, which is a reasonable distance away. The evidence with the appeal indicates that several buses serve here, connecting to other settlements. Although there is some variation in frequency, this would provide an alternative option to private car use.

The walking route to [site address] and the nearest bus stop does not have a continuous footpath. For around [address], pedestrians must walk in the road, where lighting is also limited. However, this is not uncommon in semi-rural areas. Whilst the Parish Council has raised concerns regarding road safety and speeding, the road is subject to a 30mph speed limit. The grass verges along the road would also provide opportunities for pedestrians to step out of the road, offering space to stand or walk whilst a vehicle passes. Taking these factors into account, together with footpath provision along some of the route, this would be a reasonable walking route.

As [site address] can be accessed via walking or cycling and there are public transport options nearby, I do not find that the location is so remote that future residents would have to rely exclusively on a car to access everyday goods and services. As the location of the appeal site includes a footpath to a settlement in the defined hierarchy and has sustainable transport links to other settlements, the development would satisfy part c. of Policy SP21.

For these reasons, I therefore conclude that the development would be in an appropriate location, with regard to housing in the countryside. Accordingly, the development would comply with Policy SP21 of the Local Plan.

The appeal site has a verdant character arising from its grass and vegetation, together with the large adjoining woodland. The wider area consists of housing, agricultural buildings and fields and generally has a semi-rural character. The immediate row of bungalows near the appeal site are relatively closely spaced, as are the houses on [address] close to the junction with [address]. The other houses along this stretch of the street are generally set within larger plots, with wider gaps between them. As such, there is some variation in how the housing is spread out.

The outline status of the development means that the assessment of the effect on the character of the area is more limited. The addition of two properties would extend the built frontage, creating a more continuous row of housing. I am also mindful that if development were to come forward on other nearby sites, it could exacerbate this effect. However, the overall pattern of development along this stretch of [address] comprises a varied arrangement of housing, rather than a strictly sporadic form. In this context, the development would not appear incongruous, as it would align with the distribution of housing along the street.

The introduction of residential development on the appeal site would change its character, introducing some urbanisation. However, this residential character would be in keeping with the surrounding development. Some views from the street through the site towards the woodland would be lost. Notwithstanding this, as scale, layout and appearance remain to be determined, and given the site’s generous width, development could be accommodated with spacing between the properties and to their sides. Subsequently, this could allow glimpses of the woodland, similar to those views available between nearby housing. Furthermore, the verdant character of the site could be reflected in the landscaping details secured at the reserved matters stage.

For these reasons, I therefore conclude that the development would not cause harm to the character of the area. Accordingly, it would comply with Policies SP4, SP7 and LP9 of the Local Plan. These policies, amongst other things, expect development to maintain local character and avoid detrimental effects on key landscape features.

The reason for refusal refers to conflict with Policy LP11 of the Local Plan, which relates to design codes. Given that the design of the development relates to matters reserved for future consideration, this policy is not determinative in the context of this main issue.

The appeal site is within the Zone of Influence of the Breckland Special Protection Area (SPA). It is designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations), and its qualifying features are its internationally important populations of Stone-curlew, Nightjar, and Woodlark. The SPA’s conservation objectives are to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate and ensure that the site contributes to achieving conservation of its qualifying features.

It has been identified that the SPA is vulnerable to recreational pressure. New residents of the development could visit the SPA, resulting in recreational disturbance to its qualifying features. As such, the effects of the development, both on its own and in combination with other projects, are such that it would be likely to have significant effects on the integrity of the SPA. Consequently, the Habitats Regulations require the competent authority to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) of the implications of the development on the integrity of the SPA, having regard to its conservation objectives. This responsibility falls to me as the competent authority.

Policy SP11 of the Local Plan sets out that new development which would result in a net increase in dwellings that would be likely to increase recreational pressure on any designated site for nature conservation, will be required to demonstrate adequate measures are put in place to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects. Those measures include a financial contribution towards recreational access management and monitoring. The West Suffolk Recreational Disturbance Avoidance and [name] identifies a financial contribution through a [name] and Monitoring (SAMM) tariff applied per dwelling to fund mitigation measures. As this is endorsed by Natural England, I am satisfied that this would be effective in mitigating the adverse effects of the development on the SPA.

The appellant has provided a signed and dated UU which secures the SAMM financial contribution and also includes a monitoring fee. The requirement for the contribution has been set out in the Council’s CIL compliance statement, and the Council have subsequently confirmed that the UU would secure this contribution. The contribution would accord with the criteria of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and with paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). As such, the contribution can be taken into account.

Natural England has been consulted as part of this AA and is content that the measures secured by the UU would mitigate the adverse effects associated with the development and thereby relieve pressure on the SPA. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the mitigation measures would be secured and used for their intended purpose towards maintaining the integrity of the SPA. I therefore find within my AA, that with the mitigation, the development would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policy SP11 of the Local Plan and the Habitats Regulations.

The application is described as ‘custom build housing’. The signed and dated UU would ensure that the development of the site would form a development that accords with the legal definition of self-build and custom housebuilding.

The Council has supplied a list of suggested conditions. I have considered these in light of the tests in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. I have attached conditions relating to the submission of reserved matters [1] and the time limits associated with this [2] and [3], along with a condition listing the approved plans to provide certainty [4].

In the interests of highway safety, it is necessary to impose conditions relating to access details [5] and to require a new footway to be provided to connect the site to the existing footpath [6]. To protect against flooding, it is necessary to require details of surface water drainage [7]. A condition restricting working hours has also been imposed to protect the residential amenity of nearby occupants [8]. To safeguard the character of the area, tree protection measures are necessary [9].

It is not necessary to impose a planning condition requiring the development to be occupied as custom or self-build housing because this restriction is already secured through the UU. The UU is legally binding, runs with the land and can be enforced by the Council, ensuring that the development is delivered and occupied in accordance with its terms.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale ("the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: Proposed Block Plan – 24_1312-004 Rev P03.

No development shall commence until details of the proposed access (including the position of any gates, surfacing and visibility splays to be provided) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access shall be laid out and constructed in its entirety prior to any other part of the development taking place. Thereafter the access shall be retained in its approved form.

Prior to commencement of development details of a new footway fronting the whole width of the development(s) and connecting onto the existing footway network located to the south on [address] shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The footway shall be laid out and constructed to base course before the development is first occupied and fully completed prior to the occupation of the first dwelling hereby approved. The footway shall be retained thereafter in its approved form.

Prior to commencement of development details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the means to prevent the discharge of surface water from the development onto the highway including any system to dispose of the water. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the access is first used and shall be retained thereafter in its approved form.

Any site preparation, construction and ancillary activities in connection with the development hereby approved shall not take place outside 08:00 hours to 18:00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 hours to 13:00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays, Public Holidays or [name].

During construction of the development hereby permitted, no trees shall be lopped or felled without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees within or near to the site shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of BS 5837 (2012) 'Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction'. The protection measures shall be implemented prior to any below ground works and shall be retained for the entire period of the duration of any work at the site in connection with the development hereby permitted. END OF SCHEDULE