Appeal 6006437

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted additional information in the form of a [name], supported by swept path analysis drawings, to address the third reason for refusal. This does not amount to a substantial or fundamental change such that it represents a different application. Given its nature, the submission of this information would not prejudice any interested parties or deprive them of the opportunity to comment. The Council has had the opportunity to consider this material and no longer pursues the third reason for refusal.

The appeal is accompanied by a planning obligation in the form of a [name] (UU) pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), which seeks to address the fourth and fifth reasons for refusal. The Council has had the opportunity to comment on the UU and no longer pursues these reasons.

I have determined the appeal based on the first and second reasons for refusal. The main issue is therefore whether the appeal site is a suitable location for housing having regard to the spatial strategy and access to services and facilities.

The appeal relates to a large site comprising buildings, polytunnels and greenhouses, together with areas of hardstanding. It is currently in use as a garden centre. The site is bordered by open space and woodland. [site address] has a predominantly ribbon pattern of development, with housing largely concentrated towards one end of the road. This cluster of housing is physically and visually separated from the appeal site by open land. Development in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site is more sparse, limited to a few plots set within the surrounding countryside.

Policy 3S of the Bedford Borough Council Local Plan 2030 (the Local Plan) sets out the spatial strategy to deliver sustainable development and growth. Policy 4S of the Local Plan relates to the amount and distribution of housing in accordance with the settlement hierarchy. The appeal site is outside of the Urban Area of Kempston and beyond any designated Settlement Policy Area (SPA). Although the appeal site is previously developed land, for planning policy purposes, it is therefore within the countryside.

Policy 7S of the Local Plan concerns development in the countryside. It identifies a limited range of development types that may be acceptable, along with the exceptional criteria under which development outside SPAs and [name] will be permitted. No exceptions have been put forward, and it has not been argued that the proposal complies with the exceptional criteria.

A garden centre is typically a car‐dependent use and does not demonstrate that the appeal site is well located in relation to services, facilities, or public transport. There is an established pattern of activity and vehicle movements, but this reflects the existing commercial use rather than an indication of suitability for residential development. Accessibility in rural areas will not match that of urban locations. However, development is still expected to offer convenient access by foot, cycle and public transport wherever possible in line with Policy 53 of the Local Plan.

Whilst there is housing in the surrounding area, the appeal site is detached from nearby settlements and is not closely related to everyday services and facilities. The immediate area provides no such services, meaning that future occupiers would need to travel elsewhere to meet even basic needs. Although a bus stop is located nearby, providing links to Kempston and Bedford, access to it would involve travelling along roads without footpaths or lighting. When combined with vehicle speeds, these conditions would discourage walking, particularly after dark, during poor weather, or when accompanied by children.

Similarly, the same constraints would limit the attractiveness of walking to Kempston. While cycling may be possible, it would not be suitable for all residents or for all journey types. Consequently, future occupiers would be heavily reliant on the car to meet their everyday needs. Some pedestrian movement may take place along the road, but this does not demonstrate that the route provides a safe or convenient walking environment, particularly where this existing housing may pre-date current local and national policy.

Although the withdrawn Local Plan proposed allocating land immediately to the south of the site for residential development, the Council has confirmed that this allocation was intended to include connections to public transport and walking and cycling routes. No such connectivity is proposed as part of this proposal. The withdrawn allocation does therefore not indicate that the appeal site is in a location that is suitable for residential development.

Drawing all of the above together, I conclude that the appeal site is not a suitable location for housing when having regard to the spatial strategy and the access to services and facilities. The proposal would therefore cause significant harm to the integrity of the Local Plan and would undermine the Council’s ability to deliver a genuinely plan-led approach to development.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies 3S, 4S and 7S of the Local Plan, the purposes of which have been set out above. The proposal would also conflict with part iii. of Policy 2S, part v. of Policy 29, parts ii. and iii. of Policy 31, part i. of Policy 53 and Policies 87 and 88 of the Local Plan. These policies, amongst other things, promote the provision of sustainable modes of transport with consideration of the extent to which the development is served by and makes provision for access to public transport, cyclists and pedestrians, as well as the impact on safety.

Though not cited in the reasons for refusal, the Council considers the proposal would cause some harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. However, the appeal site is already characterised by existing buildings, hardstanding, and associated activity, and does not exhibit the openness and spaciousness typically associated with the countryside. As the proposal represents the redevelopment of previously developed land, it would result in only a limited degree of urbanisation. Whilst the houses would be of a modern design, two‐storey housing is not uncommon in the area and would therefore not appear incongruous.

Accordingly, the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and in this regard would comply with Policies 28S, 29, 30 and 7S of the Local Plan. These policies, amongst other things, require development to be of a high quality in terms of design, respect the context within which it will sit and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

Section 66(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special regard is had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Adjacent to the appeal site is [address] (the Cottage)1, which is a Grade II Listed Building. Its special interest and significance are primarily derived from its age of construction and architectural features. Having regard to the presence of existing development on the site and intervening screening, the proposal would preserve the setting of the listed building and would not harm its significance. The Council also raised no concerns in respect of this matter.

There are also several other Grade II Listed Buildings near the appeal site. These include Nos. 322, 423 and 564 [site address] . The special interest and significance of these listed buildings is mostly informed by their historic fabric and architectural features, which reflect their age. Whilst limited views of the appeal site are available from these buildings, it is experienced at a considerable distance and is separated by the intervening open space. As such, the appeal site makes a 1 Historic England List Entry Number: 1114284 2 Historic England List Entry Number: 1321545 3 Historic England List Entry Number: 1114283 4 Historic England List Entry Number: 1321546 neutral contribution to their setting. Given the distance, the proposal would preserve the setting of these listed buildings and would not harm their significance.

The signed and dated UU secures an open space financial contribution towards outdoor sports and equipped play areas, as well as the provision of a tree planting scheme within the appeal site and a financial contribution to cover any shortfall. As the appeal is to be dismissed for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider the UU in detail as it would not change the outcome.

Whilst paragraph 125 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) affords substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements, that support is tempered in this instance, given the appeal site’s location outside of a settlement. Even so, the redevelopment of previously developed land attracts moderate weight in favour of the proposal.

It is recognised at paragraph 73 of the Framework that small and medium-sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area. The proposal would deliver nine new homes, including a mix of dwelling sizes that would help meet the recognised need for larger properties. This would also support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing. However, the addition of nine houses would make a modest contribution to the overall housing supply. As such, moderate weight is given to the benefit of housing delivery.

There would be some temporary economic benefits, including employment and spending during construction. There would also be some longer-term economic benefits through associated spending in the locality, but given the size of the development proposed, those benefits would be modest. There would also be moderate benefits through biodiversity net gain.

The enhancement to the character and appearance of the appeal site would be a limited benefit, given that it is not in a poor condition, even though there is some variation in the condition of the existing buildings and structures within the site. The proposed houses appear to be well-designed with no apparent flaws in internal or external space provision, with boundary landscaping retained and additional planting within the site. However, there is little to suggest that the design goes beyond what would normally be expected from new housing developments, and so I afford these other considerations only limited weight.

The Council raised no objections in terms of impact on the nearby heritage assets, neighbouring residential amenity, drainage and flood risk, parking, ecology or energy efficiency. However, compliance with relevant national and local planning policies on these matters would be required in any case. These are therefore neutral matters and neither weigh in favour nor against the proposal.

Even if I were to accept that the draft policies in the Framework consultation may suggest the potential future direction of policy, they could be changed before publication. As such, there is no certainty that the wording or approach will be the same. Consequently, any support they may provide for the principle of development can only be afforded limited weight.

Reference has been made to a recent appeal decision in which the Inspector acknowledged the proposed [name] theme park and the potential increase in housing demand, and attributed additional weight to housing delivery. [name] have not been provided with a copy of that decision, I am unable to understand its specific context, including the scale of development proposed or its proximity to the theme park. It is also not clear how close the appeal site is to the theme park site. In any event, the weight to be afforded to such considerations is a matter of judgment in each case. This consideration is therefore of minimal weight.

Although the appeal site is not an undeveloped parcel of countryside, it does not represent a suitable location for housing when assessed against the spatial strategy and the accessibility of services and facilities. I have judged the magnitude of harm as significant.

The Framework makes it clear that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. Paragraph 15 of the Framework makes clear that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led. The Framework sets out that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Chapter 9 of the Framework also promotes sustainable transport, setting out that it should be ensured that sustainable transport modes are prioritised, giving priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, and second, so far as possible, to facilitating access to high quality public transport.

Therefore, the conflict between the proposal and Policies 3S, 4S, 7S, part iii. of Policy 2S, part v. of Policy 29, parts ii. and iii. of Policy 31, part i. of Policy 53 and Policies 87 and 88 of the Local Plan should be given significant weight in this appeal as these policies are broadly consistent with the Framework. As there are no policies in the Local Plan which positively favour development of this kind in this location and as the proposal would be contrary to the policies referred to, it would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. With a supply of 3.35 years, in these circumstances footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed out-of-date. Consequently, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport vary between urban and rural areas, and it promotes an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes. However, it is also clear in setting out that the creation of sustainable places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. I have found that locationally, the proposal would run contrary to the spatial strategy by directing development to a location with poor accessibility to services and facilities and a heavy reliance on the car. This directly counters the objective of the Framework in achieving sustainable development.

On the other hand, as described above, the proposal would deliver a number of benefits, particularly in light of the Council’s current housing land supply position. However, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, and having particular regard to those which seek to direct development to sustainable locations, I find that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.