Appeal 6006016

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed self/custom build dwelling, garage, widening existing access and associated works at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/1972/OUT, dated 16 May 2025, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal, with access to be considered at this stage, and with all other matters reserved for future consideration. I have considered the appeal accordingly. Insofar as submitted plans provide indications of potential appearance, layout, scale and landscaping, I have considered them as indicative only of how the appeal site could be developed.

A completed planning obligation by unilateral undertaking (UU) has been submitted. It restricts the proposal to a self-build dwelling and requires that the owner submits to the Council details evidencing that the occupier meets the local connection criteria set out in the Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2021 (the SPD), and that they will have primary input into the design of the dwelling. The draft version of the UU submitted as part of the original appeal submission and the completed UU submitted later on in the appeal process are identical other than being signed, dated and including the appeal reference number. As such the Council have had opportunity to comment on the wording and provisions within the UU, and I am satisfied they have not been prejudiced. I have therefore taken the UU into account in the determination of the appeal.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location and to the development plan.

The proposal is for a single dwelling located on a lane primarily lined with dwellings on the edge of the village of Harpole. [site address] is located to the north, but the other sides of the appeal site are bordered by agricultural fields. The site boundaries comprise mature vegetation with one side open to the rest of the field the site is located within.

[name], S1 and R1 of the [name] Local Plan (Part 1) 2014 (the LP), as well as Policy SS1 of the [name] 2 Local Plan 2020 (the LP2), sets out the Council’s spatial strategy based on a settlement hierarchy aimed at securing development in the most sustainable locations. In accordance with the plan Inset 40 of the LP2, the proposed dwelling would be located outside the settlement boundary of Harpole, which is defined as a Secondary Village (B) within Policy SS1 of the LP2 and would therefore be classed as within the ‘open countryside’.

Policy R1 of the LP restricts development outside the existing confines of settlements to the re-use of buildings or in exceptional circumstances where a development will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities or would contribute towards and improve the local economy. It also states that when the identified housing need for rural areas has been met, criteria i) – v) of the policy will also apply. The LP2 confirms the identified rural housing need had been met at the time of its publication. The appeal proposal would not meet any of the development types, or criteria i) – v) of Policy R1 of the LP.

Policy SS1 and LH1 of the LP2 provide examples of exceptions where development would be supported outside of settlement confines. [name] (B) this includes development in accordance with Policy LH5 of the LP2.

Policy LH5 of the LP2 states that proposals for single self or custom build sites “immediately adjoining the confines” of [name] (B) will “normally be permitted where they help to meet demand as demonstrated by Part 1 of the Council’s Self and [name] and is compliant with other policies of this plan.”. The Council have confirmed following the issuing of the appeal APP/W2845/W/24/3353512, that the proposal as a self-build dwelling would meet a demand for self-builds in the area.

The SPD provides further guidance on what is considered “immediately adjoining” the settlement confines, stating the site “must have a clear, physical and relatable connection with the settlement confines boundary defined in the SNP2LP (the LP2), thereby appearing as a natural, contextually appropriate extension to it.”.

The appeal site is accessed from within the settlement boundary and shares its northern boundary with it. Development along [site address] is linear in nature, with dwellings located either side of it, including [site address] . The appeal sites eastern and western boundaries would be contiguous with [site address] ’s garden boundary and would be viewed as a similar sized plot. Therefore, an additional dwelling following the established pattern of development would be a naturally and contextually appropriate extension to the settlement boundary.

The site has agricultural fields located to three sides, however the mature vegetation and trees on the site boundaries mean all but one of these is already well established and screened, including from the adjacent public right of way. Therefore, the appearance of encroachment of built form into the countryside would be minimised and, in my judgement, not an unacceptable one.

For these reasons I find the appeal site is located immediately adjacent to the settlement confines. A dwelling could be developed in a sensitive way to follow the established pattern and grain of development, and so would appear as a natural and contextually appropriate extension to the settlement confines. This would also accord with the provisions of the [name] 2017, which state the location of new buildings should respect their context and should reflect the existing grain and structure of the settlement.

The Council have stated that their interpretation is based on previous appeal decisions, however they have not provided any details of these for me to determine whether they are comparable to the current appeal. I have considered this appeal scheme based upon its own site-specific context and merits, based upon what I saw and the substantive evidence before me.

Policy S1 of the LP requires new development in rural areas to be limited, with the emphasis being on enhancing and maintaining the distinctive character and vitality of rural communities, whilst also shortening journeys and facilitating access to jobs and services. The dwelling would be secured for someone with a local connection under the UU and there are a number of services and facilities within Harpole to meet the future occupant’s day to day needs that are in locations a short distance from the appeal site, and nature of the routes, would by no means preclude access by non-car modes. The occupiers of the proposed dwelling would in turn contribute towards the sustainability of those services and facilities.

The proposal would not adhere to criteria i) – v) of Policy R1 of the LP. However, the proposal would deliver self-build housing where there is demand adjacent to the confines of a Secondary Village, and would therefore be in accordance with the exceptions set out in Policies SS1, LH1 and LH5 of the more recently adopted LP2. This would also accord with the Paragraphs 73 and 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which provides support for self-build housing and to promote sustainable development in rural areas, stating housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Paragraph 84 of the Framework seeks to prevent development of isolated homes within the countryside, however as outlined the proposed dwelling would not be isolated and there is allowance for dwellings in such circumstances within the development plan.

The proposal would be in accordance with those aims of Policies SS1, SS2, LH1 and LH5 of the LP2, as well as [name] and S1 of the LP, which seek to ensure that development is sustainable by ensuring it is appropriate for its location. As such even though there is conflict with Policy R1 of the LP, when taken as a whole, I conclude the appeal site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location and to the relevant provisions of the development plan.

The Council has provided a list of suggested planning conditions, which I have considered against the six tests outlined in paragraph 57 of the Framework, and advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance, and where necessary I have amended the wording proposed.

In the interests of certainty and clarity, I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the approval of reserved matters (1)(2), the commencement of development (3), as well as the approved plans (4). I have worded conditions (1) and (4) such that the details shown on the Site Plan (DRG.no. 2503.01) that do not include the access works, are not set at this stage and are retained to be determined at the Reserved Matters stage as indicated on the application form.

Pre-commencement conditions are required for the provision of an archaeological written scheme of investigation (5), details of surface water drainage (6), protected species mitigation in respect of [name] (9), and a construction environmental management plan (10). These are reasonable and necessary in respect of ensuring the development would avoid harm to below-ground archaeology considering the sites potential highlighted during the consultation process, ensuring flood risk is mitigated, ensuring adequate mitigation for protected species is carried out, and ensuring the risk of pollutants entering the nearby stream is mitigated during construction. It is inherent in the nature of the works these can only be fully effective as pre-commencement conditions.

Pre-commencement conditions in relation to land contamination (7)(8), these are necessary to ensure that the land and therefore dwelling can be occupied without risk to the health of future occupiers. These initially require a desk-based assessment and only on the receipt of sufficient risk identified do they require field work. Therefore, I am satisfied they are proportionate and justified, and therefore reasonable, meeting the 6 tests.

I have also added conditions in relation to noise protection from traffic (12), and tree protection (11) in the interests of the sensitivity of the site’s location. A condition has also been included to secure the appropriate disposal of sewage from the site (13).

I have not included conditions in relation to the following as appearance, layout, and scale are reserved matters, as such as their details can be confirmed in reserved matters; finished floor levels (scale), lighting (appearance /layout), materials (appearance), waste and recycling storage (layout) and bird and bat boxes (appearance/layout). I have also not added a condition in relation to works to the public right of way as this is located outside of the appeal site.

I am not satisfied that a condition requiring details of renewable energy generation is necessary for the purposes of ‘visual amenity’. Nor is a condition in relation to EV charging necessary to make the development acceptable. I am also not satisfied conditions in relation to the burning of materials or construction hours are necessary considering the proximity of neighbouring properties and the only immediate neighbouring property is under the applicant’s control. I am not satisfied the suggested condition proposing details of the future occupier’s involvement in the design of the dwelling is necessary given this is covered within the submitted UU.

I have also omitted a condition restricting the permitted development rights of the property. Though the site is located in relatively close proximity to Harpole Conservation Area (CA), I note there is no Article [address] within the CA, there is a property located between the site and the CA’s boundary, and the appeal site is well screened both from the CA and the surrounding area. As such I am not satisfied it is reasonable or necessary.

With respect to the UU, it is signed, witnessed, dated, binds successors in title, clearly identifies the site and planning application/appeal, and fulfils all relevant criteria. I am therefore satisfied it is legally sound and secures the obligations proposed. In consideration of paragraph 58 of the Framework, the UU is necessary to secure the development as a self-build dwelling to accord with the development plan. Its obligations consider the occupation of the proposed dwelling and are therefore directly related to it and are to scale with the development.

For the reasons given above the proposal accords with the development plan and the Framework when read a whole. No material considerations raised indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.

Notwithstanding condition 4, 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 the submitted Location Plan ([name]) and Site Plan (DRG.no. 2503.01), except in respect of the details concerning the layout of the proposed dwelling, garage and proposed hedgerow shown on the Site Plan (DRG.no. 2503.01).

No development shall take place until: i. An archaeological [name] of Investigation (WSI) been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and ii. Any necessary safeguarding measures to ensure the preservation in situ of important archaeological remains and/or further archaeological investigation and recording identified in the WSI have been undertaken in accordance with a specification and timetable that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development should be carried out in full accordance with the approved details within the WSI.

No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall: i. provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii. include a timetable for its implementation; and, iii. provide, a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The drainage systems shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan.

No development shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination (including gases and water quality) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This assessment must be undertaken by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner, in accordance with [name] 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency - [name] (LCRM) (or equivalent [name] and [name] if replaced), and shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The assessment shall include: i. a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; ii. the potential risks to: human health; iii. property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes; iv. adjoining land; v. ground waters and surface waters; vi. ecological systems; vii. and archaeological sites and ancient monuments.

No development shall take place where (following the risk assessment) land affected by contamination is found which poses risks identified as unacceptable in the risk assessment, until a detailed [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Remediation scheme shall include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. The Remediation Scheme shall be sufficiently detailed and thorough to ensure that upon completion the site will not qualify as contaminated land under [name] of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to its intended use. The approved [name] shall be carried out and upon completion a verification report by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development hereby permitted is occupied.

No development shall take place, including any demolition works and site clearance, until the following information has been submitted to an approved in writing by the local planning authority: i. a mitigation strategy for [name], which shall include habitat mitigation provision, timing of works, exclusion fencing. The development and mitigation works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter.

No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental Management Plan that includes appropriate details for the protection of the adjacent stream during construction, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall take place, including site clearance and preparatory work until the tree protection measures outlined in the submitted Tree Protection Plan ([name]: appendix 3B – Tree Survey Report) have been carried out in full. The measures shall be retained for the duration of the construction of the development.

Construction work shall not take place until a scheme for protecting the proposed dwelling from traffic noise has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All works which form part of the scheme shall be completed before the dwelling is occupied, and shall be retained thereafter.

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted, in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. End of Schedule