Appeal 6005780

The appeal is dismissed.

An appeal relating to a previous outline planning application proposing the demolition of a stable and erection of up to 6 dwellings (all matters reserved) on the appeal site was dismissed in 20241. The appeal scheme proposes a reduced quantum of development and is a full planning application.

As part of their appeal submission, the appellant has provided details of an alternative route for surface water discharge from the site to be used in the event that the route considered at application stage cannot be implemented. Section 16 of the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England (2026) advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at the application stage. The alternative drainage route would not fundamentally change the proposal. On this basis, and given that the Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to comment upon the route as part of the appeal process, I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by my acceptance of the plans and accompanying information. I have, therefore, had regard to the alternative drainage route in determining the proposal.

The main issues are:  whether the proposal would be suitably located having regard to relevant development plan policies concerning the countryside; 1 APP/J1915/W/23/3322310  the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area;  the effect of the proposed development on highway safety; and  the effect of the proposed development on flood risk.

Policy DPS2 of the East Herts District Plan (adopted 2018) (the LP) directs development to brownfield sites, sites within urban areas and limited development in villages. Policy VILL3 of the LP sets out that within Group 3 villages limited infill development identified in an adopted Neighbourhood Plan will be permitted. The appeal site comprises a parcel of land located close to the junction of [site address] and [address] in the village of Dassels, a Group 3 village. It is located within the boundary of the Braughing Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2033 (adopted 2018) (the NP). However, it is not a site identified for housing by the NP. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy VILL3 of the LP.

The site is also within the Rural Area Beyond the Green Belt (the RABGB) as defined in the LP. Policy GBR2 of the LP identifies types of development which will be permitted in the RABGB including I.(e) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites, whether redundant or in continuing use in sustainable locations, where appropriate to the character, appearance and setting of the site and/or surrounding area.

The appeal site is largely open except for a stable building located in the south of the site. The site has an open, verdant character and is bound by mature trees and shrubs, with an area of woodland separating the appeal site from [site address] . It is elevated above the road level and, as a result of this and the intervening woodland, experienced as distinct from the residential dwellings on [site address] and [address] which are at road level. While there is a dwelling located on the elevated ground south of the appeal site, the building is sited a considerable distance from the shared land boundary with intervening vegetation limiting visibility.

Consequently, rather than appearing as a gap in the settlement, the appeal site is viewed and experienced as part of the surrounding countryside. Even though the proposal would be sited between a small number of existing properties, it would not represent infilling by virtue of the physical and visual separation from existing development. Moreover, as a result of its set back from [site address] and the intervening woodland, the proposed development would not relate well to the existing settlement pattern on [site address] .

On this basis, whether or not the proposal would be defined as ‘limited’ and irrespective of its effect upon the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, the proposal would not accord with Policy GBR2 I.(e) of the LP. As such, the findings in the previous appeal decision in respect of the sustainability of the location are not determinative in respect of this main issue.

The appellant has put to me that the proposal would support the guiding principles of development strategy for the District as set out in the LP. It would contribute towards meeting the housing needs [name]. However, the guiding principles identified in the LP also include protecting and enhancing the rural area to maintain the countryside and rural character of the District. Given the site is experienced as part of the countryside, rather than part of the village of Dassels, and the proposal would result in encroachment into the countryside, I find that the proposal conflicts with this guiding principle. This matter does not, therefore, alter my assessment in relation to this main issue.

In reaching my conclusion, I have also had regard to paragraph 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which places emphasis on the role of new development in supporting rural communities. Locations outside of the village of Braughing, where the NP seeks to direct growth, could help to achieve this objective. However, even were I to agree with the appellant that the NP is overly restrictive and inconsistent with the Framework in this regard, this matter would not, ultimately, lead me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue given my findings above in relation to Policy GBR2 of the LP. Similarly, the potential for the aims of Policy VILL3 of the LP to be met through windfall sites not previously identified is not determinative in this case given the conflict with the provisions of Policy GBR2 of the LP.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would not be suitably located having regard to Policies DPS2, GBR2 and VILL3 of the LP and Policy 1 of the NP, the relevant provisions of which I have set out above.

[name] have explained above, by reason of its separation from other built development as well as its openness and verdancy, the appeal site is viewed and experienced as more associated with the surrounding countryside than the village of Dassels. It contributes positively to the transition between Dassels and the wider rural landscape and forms part of the setting of the village. This is emphasised by the level difference between the site and the majority of nearby development.

Even if the proposed dwellings would be of a size and design akin to the built form in the surrounding area, they would erode the site’s openness and appear large and prominent due to their siting on elevated ground. Although the proposal would be set back from the road and includes less built form than the previous scheme, the prominence of the development would be exacerbated by the proposed garages which would increase the extent of built form and reduce the potential for views through the development to the countryside beyond.

Consequently, the proposal would appear dominant in the street scene and detract from the current open, rural character of the site. It would also erode the open, verdant setting of Dassels and result in the loss of views from the village to the surrounding countryside.

While the existing woodland separating the appeal site from [site address] would provide some screening, I observed that the site is visible through gaps in the woodland, particularly from the footpath on [site address] . Even if additional planting would further screen the development, such planting would take time to establish and may not enable complete screening from all viewpoints at all times of the year. As such, the proposal would appear unduly prominent, detracting from the existing character of, and having an urbanising effect on, the site and surrounding area.

The proposed access would involve the widening and regrading of the existing access with some tree removals necessary. In combination with the addition of hardstanding and retaining walls, this would result in a harmful effect on the character and appearance of [address], even though there may not be a requirement for highly engineered alterations or tall retaining walls and there are existing vehicular accesses nearby. Furthermore, the widened access to the site would increase the visibility of the proposed dwellings from the surrounding area, exacerbating the urbanising effect of the development.

I have had regard to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) provided by the appellant in setting out my findings above. The LVIA acknowledges that the development would result in changes to views from [site address] and the alteration of the rural character of these views. For the reasons given above, I find that these changes would erode the countryside setting of Dassels, causing harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The LVIA asserts that in views from [address] the proposed buildings would be absorbed into the visual field without great loss to the visual amenity that the views currently possess. From my observations on site, the proposed dwellings would be seen in the context of nearby development in these views. Notwithstanding this, even if the entirety of the structures would not be visible taking account of the existing and proposed vegetation, the proposed dwellings would appear incongruous due to their siting at a higher elevation than development visible in the surrounding area.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. It would, therefore, be contrary to the relevant provisions of Policies DES2, DES3, DES4, GBR2 and VILL3 of the LP and Policy 2 of the NP. Among other things, these policies seek development which makes best use of the available land by respecting or improving upon the character of the site and the surrounding area, harmonises with its surroundings, conserves, enhances or strengthens the character and distinctive features of the District’s landscape and retains, protects and enhances existing landscape features which are of amenity value.

The Highway Authority concludes that the proposal is not expected to have a significant impact on the capacity of the surrounding highway network or on the operation of the junction at [site address] and [address]. Consequently, it does not object to the proposed development, subject to conditions. From the information before me, I see no reason to disagree.

[name] have explained above, the proposed access would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of [address], including as a result of the required tree removals. Nevertheless, from the evidence before me, it would seem that a safe access to the site can be secured, without prejudicing the safety of users of the Public Right of Way.

Consequently, I am satisfied that the proposed development could be developed in a way that would not be prejudicial to highway safety. As such, it would not conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies TRA2 and CFLR3 of the LP and Policy 15 of the NP. These policies seek, among other things, to ensure safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users and that proposals do not adversely affect any Public Right of Way or give rise to unacceptable highway dangers.

Although the appeal site is located within [name] 1 and not within an area at risk of surface water flooding, there is a high surface water flood risk on [address]. The proposed drainage strategy reflects the existing runoff pattern from the site, proposing to drain into a culvert opposite the site entrance on [address]. The culvert is not located within the appeal site or under the ownership of the appellant and permission would be required for the outfall to cross [address]. As such, the Council raises concerns about whether suitable surface water drainage could be achieved for the development.

The appellant has put to me that the ditch proposed for the outfall is an ordinary watercourse and that, subject to obtaining the necessary [name], they should have the right to outfall to this location. Nevertheless, they have also suggested an alternative route for surface water discharge which would use land entirely within their ownership.

In either scenario, discharge rates would not exceed the equivalent greenfield runoff rates for 1 in 100 and 1 in 30 year events. Discharge rates for a 2 year event would be higher than the equivalent greenfield runoff rate. However, the appellant highlights that restricting flows to match the greenfield runoff rate would require very small orifice plates or outlet diameters which would increase the risk of blockage and potential flooding within the drainage system. From the information before me, I see no reason to disagree. Moreover, there is no evidence before me to suggest that the discharge rates proposed would increase the risk of flooding in the local area.

In this context, I am satisfied that, on the basis of the information before me, appropriate surface water drainage could be achieved, even though final details of the drainage scheme, including the route to be used, would need to be agreed prior to development commencing. The evidence before me indicates that a condition securing this could be satisfactorily discharged. I, therefore, consider that a suitably worded condition would represent an appropriate and reasonable mechanism for securing appropriate drainage provision.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on flood risk. It would, therefore, be consistent with the relevant provisions of Policies WAT1 and WAT5 of the LP. Among other things, these policies seek to ensure that developments neither increase the likelihood or intensity of any form of flooding and utilise the most sustainable forms of drainage systems, managing surface water runoff as close to its source as possible.

The appeal site is located close to, and forms part of the setting of 4 [name] listed buildings known as [address], [address] ([name] of [address]), [name] and The Barn and [name] at [name] (30 Metres to North of Bury)2. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had special 2 List entry numbers 1102289, 1102290, 1102292 and 1102291 regard to the desirability of preserving their settings. The setting of the listed buildings comprises the residential dwellings located along [site address] and the surrounding countryside. This setting contributes positively to the significance of the listed buildings. Nevertheless, due to the separation between the proposed dwellings and the listed buildings and intervening landscape and highway, I consider that the proposed development would preserve the setting of the listed buildings and the contribution this makes to their significance.

There is no dispute between the parties regarding land contamination, sustainable construction and climate change mitigation, ecology, refuse storage and collection or parking provision. The amount of amenity space to be provided, the living conditions of future occupiers, the proposed materials, boundary treatments and hard surfacing and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties are also not matters in dispute between the parties. Nonetheless, these matters are normal expectations of new development and, as such, attract neutral weight.

The appeal proposal would not be suitably located having regard to development plan policies concerning the countryside. It would also have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. As such, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

However, the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, with the Council indicating that supply currently stands at between 3.4 and 3.7 years. In these circumstances, paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged and Policy INT1 of the LP, which broadly reflects the wording of paragraph 11d) of the Framework, is also of relevance.

The proposal would contribute towards the supply of housing in an area where there is an undisputed shortfall and would reflect the aims of the Framework to significantly boost the supply of housing. The development would make efficient use of the site, retain and reinforce substantial areas of mature tree planting and deliver a biodiversity net gain. It would also deliver economic benefits during construction and future occupiers would support the ongoing vitality of the community, consistent with the objectives of the Framework. Nevertheless, given the limited scale of the proposed development, the contribution to housing supply and other benefits would be relatively limited in extent. I afford them moderate weight in the balance.

Balanced against this, the Framework highlights at paragraph 129 that the use of land should take into account the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting and the importance of securing well-designed, attractive and healthy places. Paragraph 135 outlines that developments should add to the overall quality of the area, be sympathetic to local character and history and establish or maintain a strong sense of place. For the reasons set out in relation to the first and second main issues, I find that the proposal would wholly fall short of these expectations of the Framework.

Consequently, in this case, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.