Appeal 6006880

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal proposal seeks planning permission in outline form with all matters, except for access, reserved for future consideration. The proposal is accompanied by an indicative plan showing the potential siting of the proposed dwellings and I have had regard to this in my determination of this appeal.

The Council’s decision notice included 7 reasons for refusal. The appellant’s appeal submission is accompanied by an odour assessment, an updated nutrient neutrality calculator, a [name] (UU) to secure recreational mitigation contributions in accordance with the Green Infrastructure Avoidance Mitigation Strategy and a [name]. Whilst these were not before the Council when the planning application was determined, the appeal procedure has provided an opportunity for the parties to comment on the assessment and legal obligations. As such, I am satisfied that no party has been prejudiced by my accepting of them.

The Council is satisfied that reasons nos 5, 6, and 7 of the decision notice are now either resolved entirely or capable of being resolved through the evidence and legal agreements that have been submitted as part of the appeal. I have no reason to disagree with the conclusions reached by the Council in these instances and, accordingly they need not be a main issue.

The main issues are: i) whether the site is an appropriate location for a residential dwelling, with particular reference to accessibility of services and facilities; and ii) the effect of the proposal on character and appearance.

Policy DM1.3 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development [name], October 2015 (the LP) addresses new development in the countryside and seeks to guide new development to protect the countryside and promote sustainable patterns of development. LP Policy DM 1.3 identifies that development in the countryside outside of the defined development boundaries of settlements will only be granted where specific policies allow for development outside of development boundaries or where overriding economic, social and environmental benefits are demonstrated.

The proposal is advanced as self-build and a UU has been submitted to secure it as such. GNLP Policy 7.5 of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (GNLP) supports small scale residential development of up to three dwellings for self and custom build housing, for those meeting the eligibility criteria for part 1 of the relevant district self-build register where sites are within or adjacent to settlements with a designated settlement boundary and on sites within or adjacent to other settlements without a settlement boundary. This policy also requires development to respect character of the settlement, avoid significant adverse impacts on the landscape and natural environment, and comply with other relevant LP policies.

The appellant contends that the appeal site is functionally related to Wymondham, which offers a broad range of services, facilities and employment opportunities. However, whilst there are sporadic properties in the vicinity, the appeal site lies within the open countryside, outside any defined settlement boundary, and is spatially separate from the main built-up area of Wymondham. As such, the proposal would conflict with locational requirements of GNLP Policy 7.5 and LP Policy DM1.3, which seek to direct development to settlements in the interests of sustainable development.

Wymondham provides access to a range of services including, but not limited to, schools, food stores, employment and leisure facilities. However, in the vicinity of the appeal site the local road network is characterised by narrow carriageways, the absence of footways and street lighting, and national speed limits. These conditions would not provide a safe or attractive environment for walking or cycling, particularly for those with mobility issues or those with pushchairs, or during periods of adverse weather and the hours of darkness. It is therefore likely that future occupiers would be heavily reliant upon private vehicles to meet their day-to-day needs.

While journeys by private motor vehicle to nearby settlements may be relatively short, such reliance would not reflect the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to ensure safe and suitable access for all and to promote sustainable modes of transport.

Reference is made to the [name], a public footpath providing a route to the town centre at a distance of approximately a 1.1-miles. Whilst this may offer a recreational route, its nature and condition mean that it would not represent a convenient, safe or realistic means of accessing day-to-day services throughout the year for many future occupiers.

The appellant advances that the appeal site is proximate to some well-regarded schools. However, proximity alone does not equate to ease or safety of access. This consideration therefore attracts limited weight and does not overcome the concerns identified in relation to accessibility and reliance on private vehicle use, even when accepting that the site is in a rural location.

For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal site would represent an unsuitable location for the proposed development, having particular regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan and accessibility of services and facilities. It would therefore be contrary to Policy 7.5 of the GNLP, Policies DM1.3 and DM3.10 of the LP and the Framework. Collectively, and amongst other things, these seek to direct new development to sustainable locations, which minimise the need to travel.

The site lies within an area that is characterised primarily by open fields and areas of woodland and small clusters of development. The appeal site itself benefits from a high degree of visual enclosure due to its heavily wooded boundaries.

The proposal would result in encroachment into an undeveloped parcel of land, beyond the established pattern of development. Whilst there are dwellings along [address], the proposal would appear discordant with the prevailing pattern of built form, which is characterised by scattered clusters of development located closer to the road frontage.

Notwithstanding that the siting, design and appearance of the dwellings are reserved matters, the submitted details indicate that the dwellings would be positioned within a woodland clearing. Whilst this arrangement would provide a degree of screening, and thereby limit the visual impact of built form to some extent, the associated domestication of the plot, including areas of hard standing and domestic paraphernalia, that may not require the benefit of planning permission, would give rise to a suburban appearance that would erode the rural character of the area.

For the reasons stated, I conclude that the proposal would cause harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The development would conflict with requirements of Policy 2 of the GLP and Policies DM1.4 and DM3.8 of the LP which, amongst other things, require development to be sympathetic within the wider landscape, respond positively to character, distinctiveness, sense of place and to the setting of the nearest settlement. The proposal would also conflict with the Framework in so far as it seeks new development to be sympathetic to local character and its landscape setting, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The site lies within the Zone of Influence of one or more [name] comprising the Norfolk Green Infrastructure and Recreational disturbance Avoidance and [name]. A UU has been submitted with the appeal, which seeks to secure a financial contribution to mitigate the additional recreational pressure on the [name] arising through the proposed development. [name] were minded to allow the appeal, I would need to be satisfied that the proposal would have no adverse effects upon the [name]. However, I am dismissing the appeal there is no requirement for me to undertake an Appropriate Assessment.

My attention has been drawn to other appeal decisions and other approvals. However, from the limited information provided I am unable to compare those proposals to the one currently before me, in terms of accessibility to services and facilities, or their effect on the character and appearance of the area. In particular the Edgefield and [name] sites referred to by the appellant are located in different authorities to the appeal scheme before me. In any event, I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

I note the evolution of the proposal from a previously refused scheme. However, I have considered the appeal proposal on its own merits based on the evidence before me.

The Council acknowledges that they cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, including the self-build and custom-housing provision. In these circumstances, paragraph 11d) ii of the Framework is applicable.

The proposal would deliver 2no self-build/custom build plots. This would contribute towards the Council’s statutory duty under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 to grant sufficient permissions for individuals and associations seeking to build their own homes. As such, this element of the proposal is afforded moderate positive weight.

There would be social and economic benefits associated with the proposal relating to construction employment and spend within the local economy once the dwellings are occupied. The dwellings could also be built out relatively quickly.

I have carefully considered the benefits advanced. However, the benefits associated with two additional dwellings would be relatively minor, even when taking account of the Framework’s objective of boosting significantly the supply of housing, and the Council’s housing land supply position. I therefore conclude that the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the relatively limited benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal is dismissed.