Appeal 6005635

The appeal is dismissed.

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

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

An applicant can apply for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum net number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, two single storey units.

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

The appeal site comprises an overgrown former allotment, enclosed with fencing. To its south is a row of dwellings, Woodland View. To the north is undeveloped land, with mown grass and trees. To either side are outbuildings associated with other dwellings.

The site is also within the Lincolnshire Wolds National Landscape. The Management Plan1 highlights the area’s unique characteristics, including attractive villages often nestled in hill folds, and sets out the objective of sustaining and enhancing the area’s natural beauty and landscape character. Policy S62 of the Local Plan requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the area’s landscape and scenic beauty, which reflects paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Policy S53 of the Local Plan, alongside criteria relating to design, requires development to relate well to the site, its local and wider context, amongst other things.

The strategy for new housing in the area is set out in a settlement hierarchy and criteria within Policies S1 and S4 of the Local Plan2. Claxby is a ‘Small Village,’ which may receive limited growth, primarily through site allocations. Other development is limited to appropriate locations within the developed footprint of the village, and which preserves or enhances the settlement’s character and appearance, amongst other things.

The Local Plan, states that to qualify as an appropriate location, it must comply with policies and retain the core shape and form of the settlement; should not harm the settlement’s character and appearance; and should not significantly harm the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside or rural setting of the settlement.

Developed footprint is defined as the continuous built form of the settlement, excluding gardens, paddocks and other undeveloped land within the curtilage of buildings on the edge of the settlement when land relates more to surrounding countryside than to the built up area of the settlement. This is amongst other criteria.

[address] and the wider settlement of Claxby, is characterised by linear development, such that there is little in the way of development to the rear of the street facing dwellings, other than outbuildings. This is apparent by way of consistent views towards gardens, open plots, countryside and trees, behind the street facing dwellings, which is available from the public highways. Whilst there are examples of dwellings sitting outside of the linear arrangement, they are primarily within a different part of village and are visually distinct from the context of the appeal site. Overall, small scale backland development is not a prevailing feature of the settlement.

Woodland View is terraced, such that views from [address] towards the appeal site are relatively limited. However, by way of its undeveloped nature, the site relates more to the areas of land to the north, which have a countryside character. This also includes the sylvan public right of way, [address]. [address] passes alongside and is the vantage point from which the site is prominent and not screened by other development. Nearby built form is broadly aligned with the appeal site. However this is clearly discernible as garden outbuildings that are well related to their host dwellings and associated gardens. 1 Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Management Plan, 2018 - 2023 2 Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, [name] 2023.

As an undeveloped parcel of land, the appeal site currently makes a broadly positive and consistent contribution to the character of the settlement and its countryside setting. The absence of development within a space, directly to the rear of existing dwellings, maintains the prevailing linear form of the settlement.

Developing the site as two apartments, even at single storey, would represent a departure from the linear character of the settlement in this location, and would harm its local distinctiveness. This would be in terms of the direct perception of new residential units with their associated car parking and domestic paraphernalia, close behind the dwellings and gardens of Woodland View. Due to its location directly behind Woodland View, it would also not appear as organic growth of the settlement, regardless of whether the site has the space to accommodate up to two residential units, or that the design is not a consideration at permission in principle stage.

The proposal, would not meet the parameters for an appropriate location, nor would it be within the developed footprint of the village. Moreover, as the development of the site would harm the special character of the area and would not respond positively to the local context, the proposal would fail to enhance the area’s landscape and scenic beauty. As harm is not avoided to the character of the settlement, it follows that the appeal proposal would not further the purposes of the Lincolnshire Wolds National Landscape.

The site is approximately 9.4 metres from the rear elevations of the dwellings on Woodland View, and it is acknowledged that the depth of the site is somewhat constrained. However, it is not shown that measures to prevent overlooking from 2 and [address], and to guard against a dominating impact on the living conditions of no’s 2 and 3, could not be provided at technical details stage. Such as, by way of the scale, massing, positioning of the built form, and means of enclosure.

Accordingly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I consider that the amount of development proposed is acceptable at permission in principle stage. In this respect, the development would accord with the provisions of Policy S53 of the Local Plan, insofar as it requires development to safeguard residential amenity, and a compatibility with neighbouring land uses, amongst other things.

Nevertheless, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the site is not suitable for residential development with regard to its location and land use. The proposal would therefore conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies S1, S4 and S62 of the Local Plan and the Framework. It would also fail to comply with the provisions of Policy S53 insofar as they relate to a requirement for development to relate well to its context.

The development would provide new homes that are proposed to be thermally efficient and sustainable. They are also proposed to have high accessibility standards for any occupant with impaired mobility. One would be designed to meet the appellant’s specific needs, and his relocation to the site may mean that an affordable house would be returned to the housing stock. These are benefits of the scheme; however they do not outweigh the harm I have found in relation to the suitability of the site with regard to its location and land use.

The appellant’s stance is that the development would meet the needs of local residents seeking to downsize from larger homes and remain in the area, as they consider that there are few dwellings suitable for older/disabled residents. However this is not supported with evidence. I saw during my site visit that there are several single storey dwellings within the village, which could meet a local need for older/disabled residents, and as such I attribute limited weight to this matter.

The proposal would provide off-street parking; this is a neutral factor that does not outweigh the identified harm.

I have found that there is potential for the amount of development to be compatible with the area, having regard to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and future occupants of the development. I have also found there to be potential sustainability, accessibility and social benefits.

However, I have also found that the development would be significantly harmful in terms of its location and land use. Moreover, I give great weight to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape, and the development fails to accord with this requirement. These factors far outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.