Appeal 6005559

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 2 new dwellings to be developed as [name] at [site address] , [site address] , Mildenhall, Suffolk [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/24/1397/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, treating the proposed site plan as purely indicative of how development could be accommodated on the site.

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 development at land between [address] and Dayspring1. 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. 1 Appeal Ref: 6005556

The main issues are: • 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.

The appeal site is an undeveloped parcel of land at the end of a row of four bungalows. Opposite there is a bungalow and a commercial premises. Whilst there may be another dwelling in this immediate vicinity, observations from the site visit indicate that it is neither next to the highway nor does it front it. Further north of the site lies [address], [address] and The Barn, with a relatively large gap between this grouping of housing and the row of bungalows. Although this gap could potentially be developed in the future, there is no certainty this will occur, and the assessment must be based on current circumstances. As this more distant grouping of dwellings is not visible from the appeal site, they do not form part of a cohesive group with it. The development would therefore not be located within a small cohesive group of seven or more dwellings and would fail to satisfy part a. of Policy SP21.

Part b of Policy SP21 requires that development should comprise the infilling of a small undeveloped plot. The policy does not set out what is defined by infilling, and neither main party has drawn my attention to such a definition. While this was not explicitly cited in the reason for refusal, the Council’s Officer Report confirms that the development does not comply with this requirement. While a bungalow lies on one side, the remaining boundaries are largely defined by a dense belt of trees adjoining open countryside. As the site is predominantly bordered by undeveloped land, the proposal cannot reasonably be considered infilling and therefore fails to satisfy part b. of Policy 21.

[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. Notwithstanding this, 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 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.

Whilst the development would satisfy parts a. and c. of Policy SP21, it would fail to meet the requirements of part b. Given the presence of housing along the street, the development would not result in isolated homes in the countryside, as it would not be far away from people or buildings. However, this would not overcome the failure to satisfy part b.

For these reasons, I conclude that the development would not be in an appropriate location, with regard to housing in the countryside. Accordingly, the development would conflict with Policy SP21 of the Local Plan. It is clear from the supporting text to the policy that its purpose is to allow limited development within small groups of dwellings where it can help sustain existing services and facilities, provided it respects the character of the surrounding area. In this case, the development aligns with that broader objective by representing small-scale development that would help support [site address] . I therefore give limited weight to this conflict.

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 [address] 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 site would change its character, introducing some urbanisation to the site. 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, whilst scale, layout and appearance remain to be determined, the indicative proposed site plan demonstrates that 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 houses. 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 would be 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 development would comply with Policy SP11 of the Local Plan and the Habitats Regulations.

Policy SP20 of the Local Plan supports custom and self-build housing, where they comply with other policies in the development plan. 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 UU would accord with the criteria of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and with paragraph 58 of the Framework. As such, the provision of this type of housing can be taken into account.

The development would not be in an appropriate location when having regard to housing in the countryside. [name] have judged the conflict with Policy SP21 of the Local Plan to be limited, the development would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole.

The development would contribute towards the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing. Even if the Council can demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, this does not preclude the provision of further housing. I therefore give moderate weight to the benefit of the delivery of housing.

Paragraph 73 of the Framework supports small sites to come forward for self-build and custom-build housing. The Framework also supports development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account the identified need for different types of housing. Policy SP20 of the Local Plan identifies a demand for approximately 30 custom and self-build plots per annum to meet the demand in [name]. Even if I were to be satisfied that this policy would deliver the identified need later in the plan period, as acknowledged by the Council, they are currently not meeting the demand for self/custom-build housing. Consequently, the development, secured by the UU, would help to meet this demand in the short term and is in accordance with the Framework. Noting the scale of the development, I give this benefit moderate weight.

Additionally, the development would deliver both short-term and long-term economic benefits. These include job creation and increased spending during the construction phase, as well as ongoing expenditure and support for local services from future occupants. Although the extent of the benefits would be limited because of the quantum of development, this nevertheless weighs in favour of the development.

Measures including electric charging facilities and biodiversity enhancements through landscaping would be dealt with under the reserved matters application. Minimal weight can therefore be attached to any associated environmental benefits at this stage.

Although there is some conflict with the development plan, when taking all of the above into account, the benefits in support of the appeal would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

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].

Conditions relating to the laying out of the access [5], visibility splays [6] and a construction management strategy [7] are necessary in the interests of highway safety. To safeguard the character of the area, an arboricultural method statement [8] is necessary. To ensure the site is appropriately drained, details of surface water drainage [9] are necessary. To safeguard protected habitats and species, it is necessary for a [name] to be implemented [10] and for the works to be carried out in accordance with the preliminary ecological appraisal [11]. A condition restricting working hours [12] has also been imposed to protect the residential amenity of nearby occupants.

I have not imposed the suggested condition requiring details of refuse and recycling, as this matter can be appropriately addressed at the reserved matters stage when the layout is considered. It is also 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.

The development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, 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: 24_1313-001 Rev P03 - Site Location Plan. 24_1313-002 Rev P02 - Existing Site and Block Plan.

No other part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the new access has been laid out and completed with an entrance width of 4.5 metres. The access shall be properly surfaced in a bound material for a minimum distance of 5 metres, measured from the nearside edge of the metalled carriageway. The access shall thereafter be retained in its approved form.

Before the access is first used visibility splays shall be provided with an X dimension of 2.4 metres and a Y dimension of 43 metres [tangential to the nearside edge of the carriageway] and thereafter retained in the specified form. No obstruction to visibility shall be erected, constructed, planted or permitted to grow over 0.6 metres high within the areas of the visibility splays.

Prior to commencement of development a [name] shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall include: a. Access and parking arrangements for contractors vehicles and delivery vehicles (locations and times); b. A methodology for avoiding soil from the site tracking onto the highway with a strategy for remedy of this should it occur. The approved strategy shall be adhered to until completion of the development.

Prior to commencement of development an [name] (AMS) (including any demolition, groundworks and site clearance) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The AMS should include details of the following: a. Measures for the protection of those trees and hedges on the application site that are to be retained; b. Details of all construction measures within the 'Root Protection Area' (defined by a radius of dbh x 12 where dbh is the diameter of the trunk measured at a height of 1.5m above ground level) of those trees on the application site which are to be retained specifying the position, depth, and method of construction/installation/excavation of service trenches, building foundations, hardstandings, roads and footpaths; c. A schedule of proposed surgery works to be undertaken to those trees and hedges on the application site which are to be retained. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved AMS unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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.

Prior to any works above ground level a [name] for protected, priority and threatened species, prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist in line with the recommendations of the [name] (Arbtech, August 2024), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The content of the [name] shall include the following: a. Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed enhancement measures; b. Detailed designs or product descriptions to achieve stated objectives; c. Locations of proposed enhancement measures by appropriate maps and plans (where relevant); d. Persons responsible for implementing the enhancement measures; e. Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant). The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained.

All mitigation measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the [name] (Arbtech, August 2024). This will include the appointment of an appropriately competent person e.g. an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) to provide on-site ecological expertise during construction.

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]. END OF SCHEDULE