Appeal 6007629

The appeal is dismissed.

As the appeal relates to works that would affect the setting of a [name] listed building, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, as required by Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including on the setting of the [name] listed building known as ‘[address]’; and • whether the site is a suitable location for a dwelling, having particular regard to the Council’s development plan and access to local services and facilities.

The appeal site is located at the site entrance adjacent to a group of converted dwellings known as [address] Barns, within the rural parish of Easton. It comprises the remains of a modest, low lying, shallow-pitched, single-storey brick and pantile structure known as the [address]. Evidence indicates that the building dates from the late 19th or early 20th century and formerly served as a boiler house for the preparation of animal feed associated with the farm.

The site is enclosed externally by metal estate railings and internally by timber post-and-rail fencing. Whilst the building sits broadly level with the shared driveway, it is enclosed by rising grassed earth banks to the road and eastern side, which limit views of the site from the south and east. Nevertheless, despite its modest scale, the landform and prominent position at the wide-mouthed access mean that the [address] is readily visible from [site address] when approached from the north-west, where it is experienced within the context of the wider farmstead setting. - Significance

It is common ground that the [address] is of low architectural significance and does not qualify to be considered as a non-designated heritage asset in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Consequently, there is no objection to its loss as a matter of principle.

The Grade II listed Glevering House1 (formerly [address]) lies to the south-west. It is a late 16th or early 17th century two storey farmhouse with attic under a plain tiled roof. It is timber framed with a plastered facade and roughcast render to its gable ends and rear. Its significance is derived from its architectural and historic interest, its traditional vernacular construction, character and its connection to its associated farm buildings and the [name] estate.

As the principal dwelling serving the former farmstead, the listed farmhouse occupies an elevated position within an open rural setting. The subsequent development of [address] Barns has somewhat altered this context, reducing the visual prominence of the listed building.

The clustered arrangement of the converted barns and associated domestic outbuildings remain inward-facing. By contrast, the [address] is outward facing and orientated away from this enclave, giving it a degree of visual and spatial separation from the converted complex. Nevertheless, its origins are clearly linked to the historic farmstead, and it contributes to the collective historic significance derived from the group of former agricultural buildings associated with the listed farmhouse. - Effects of the proposal

Whilst considerably larger in footprint, the brick-built element that would replace the [address] takes its scale, form and design cues from the original building proposed for demolition. The remainder of the building would respond to the existing topography and be embedded within the existing landform which would reduce its visual prominence.

However, the proposal would create a substantial flat-roofed area artificially raised above the existing landform. The submitted plans indicate that this would function as a walk-on roof terrace with stone or tiled surfacing, accessed by steps and enclosed by metal estate railings. Whilst such railings would reflect others within the surrounding area, their elevated position, combined with the introduction of a sizeable raised terrace, would introduce an unduly formal and urbanising feature into what is otherwise a predominantly informal rural setting.

In addition, the use of the roof terrace as a recreational space would likely result in the presence of domestic paraphernalia, such as outdoor furniture, barbecues and/or children’s play equipment. Although the appellant contends that such 1 [name] 1199008 matters could be controlled, no suggested condition has been provided for my consideration. In any event, as domestic paraphernalia would not generally constitute development, I am not persuaded that its presence could be effectively prevented.

Consequently, the proposal would erode the rural character and appearance of the area. Moreover, the roof terrace would be elevated and thus prominent in the foreground of the listed building, adversely affecting its setting, particularly in views from the north-west. [name] note the presence of intervening buildings that partially screen the appeal site from the listed building, these do not fully mitigate the harm identified. Nor would the proposed landscaping sufficiently reduce that harm. Accordingly, these considerations do not alter my overall findings.

This brings the scheme into conflict with the Act. In the context of the Framework, the harm would be less than substantial and at the lower end of the scale of harm. However, this harm does not equate to less than substantial importance and weight. Indeed, I attach considerable weight and importance to it. - Conclusions on character and appearance, including heritage

Drawing the above together, I find that the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including its effect on the setting of the [name] listed [address], to be demonstrably harmful. It follows that the proposal is contrary to Policies SCLP5.4(d), SCLP10.4, SCLP11.1, SCLP11.3 and SCLP11.4 of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (adopted 2020) (the Local Plan). Amongst other things, these policies expect proposals to not cause undue harm to the character and appearance of surrounding landscape and to conserve and enhance the historic environment, including protecting the setting of listed buildings from harm. - Public benefits and heritage balance

In accordance with Paragraph 215 of the Framework, the harm to the listed building setting should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

In this case, a key public benefit would be to boost the supply of homes where the Council is currently unable to meet the necessary five-year housing land supply (5YHLS) as required by the Framework. It would bring about social, economic and environmental benefits.

These include temporary benefits to the building industry during construction, local spend once operational, benefits from a high standard of sustainable design and biodiversity net gain. These benefits are important but are tempered by a minor net gain of just one dwelling. Nevertheless, they weigh considerably in favour of the scheme as public benefits.

It is suggested that the redevelopment would enhance a site that currently is overgrown and unkempt. However, the [address] even in its poor state of repair has a historic charm and I do not find the site as existing to be particularly harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Thus, it follows that its current neutral effect would not be enhanced by a development that I find would be harmful.

Moreover, in accordance with Paragraph 212 of the Framework, great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset. In this context, whilst the harm would be localised and less than substantial, nevertheless it is of considerable importance. As such I find that the public benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset identified. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that there is a clear and convincing justification for the harm that would be caused to the listed building. The proposal would conflict with the conserving and enhancing requirements of the historic environment policies of the Framework. [name] - Development plan

The Local Plan sets out a strategic approach that seeks to focus development towards areas with the services and infrastructure to support growth. Policy SCLP3.2 details a five-tier settlement hierarchy. Easton, the nearest settlement to the appeal site, is named as a ‘Small Village’ falling within Tier 4. However, the appeal site lies outside of the settlement boundary for Easton. Policy SCLP3.3 confirms that land outside of the settlement boundaries defined in the plan, and which are not allocated, should be considered as Countryside, which falls at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Local Plan Policy SCLP5.3 relates to development in the countryside. Its supporting text advises that, due to limited services and facilities, sites in the countryside are not suitable locations to focus new development. This policy recognises that there is a need for housing in the countryside in certain circumstances, but restricts new residential development outside of settlement boundaries, unless a specific exception is met. One of these exceptions permits limited development within existing clusters of housing, in accordance with Local Plan Policy SCLP5.4.

In this context, clusters in the countryside are defined as a continuous line of existing dwellings, or a close group of existing dwellings adjacent to an existing highway and containing 5 or more dwellings. As a former farmstead of more than 5 dwellings, these barn conversions are grouped together just off [site address] . Whilst not immediately adjacent to the highway, to my mind, the barns form a clear and close group of dwellings, capable of forming a cluster as intended by the policy. Thus, I find it complies with criterion (a).

Located between the barns and the roadside, the appeal site is a clear identifiable gap within the former farmstead and is located adjacent to existing development. Indeed, the barn conversions to the south and the former stable associated with [address] to the east, form development on two sides, as required by criterion (b).

The development would be seen in the context of a backdrop of barn conversions. Moreover, the contained nature of the site at the entrance of this housing cluster would not represent an extension of built form into the countryside, nor constitute harmful encroachment, complying with criterion (c).

However, I have already found that the proposal would cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the rural area, which brings the scheme into conflict with criterion (d) of Policy SCLP5.4.

The proposal does not gain support from Local Plan Policy SCLP5.9 which is permissive of self-build/custom build dwellings as an exception, as it does not comply with other relevant policies of the Local Plan, as required. It has not been put to me that the proposal meets any other exception policy to the general approach to housing in the countryside. - Access to services and facilities

Limited evidence is before me relating to both the distance or the services and local facilities available to future occupiers in the wider area. However, the appeal site is not isolated, being part of a cluster of houses in the countryside and the distances do not appear to be substantial. Nevertheless, they are far enough away that it is unlikely future occupiers would regularly choose to walk or cycle to access them. The absence of footpaths and streetlighting would likely be a deterrent for pedestrians and cyclists. Overall, there would be limited opportunities to reach services and facilities by sustainable modes, so the site is not well related to them and travel would be mainly by private car.

In this regard the proposal would be contrary to criterion (d) of Local Plan Policy SCLP7.1, which requires development to be located close to, and provide safe pedestrian and cycle access to services and facilities. - Conclusions on suitable location

Bringing the above together, I have found that the appeal site lies within a cluster of housing in the countryside. Whilst there is conflict with criterion (d) of Local Plan Policy SCLP5.4, the level of conflict is limited and not due to its location as a matter of principle. There would be limited opportunities for sustainably accessing the services and facilities necessary for occupiers’ day-to-day needs. In this regard, I have identified conflict with Policy SCLP7.1.

The policy exceptions that allow housing in the countryside, have an inevitable tension with policies that aim to seek sustainable travel, which must be balanced. However, in accepting that the site is part of a cluster, some car travel to reach services and facilities is unavoidable, as in many small settlements. This is a clear expectation of Policy SCLP5.4. For this reason, I attribute a reduced weight to the conflict with Policy SCLP7.1. Consequently, having regard to the development plan, when considered as a whole, I find the site is a suitable location for a dwelling.

The appellant asserts that the Council is unable to meet its duty to provide sufficient SBCB plots, a matter not disputed by the Council. Although advanced as a SBCB dwelling, the [name] submitted with this appeal to secure this provision has not been signed or executed. With no means to secure the development as a genuine SBCB dwelling, I can give this matter only limited weight. This differs from the appeal decision2 drawn to my attention, which was afforded significant weight as SBCB was secured by a legal agreement.

The appeal site falls within the zone of influence of a number of European designated habitat sites, afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as amended. [name] been minded to allow this appeal, I would have needed to further consider the effect of the proposal on the integrity of these, including whether the direct payment adequately mitigates any likely significant effects on recreational disturbance. However, as I am dismissing 2 APP/X3540/W/24/3347785 6 the appeal for other reasons, I have not considered this further, and it has not been necessary for me to undertake an Appropriate Assessment.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS. Accordingly, there is a pressing need for new housing in the area. The proposal would make a minor, but important contribution to the supply of new homes. Furthermore, as a small site, it is likely that the dwelling could be delivered quickly. This is a matter that carries considerable weight in favour of the proposal.

Given the housing land supply position, it warrants application of Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework for decision-taking purposes. This requires that planning permission is granted for the development unless certain circumstances apply and this is assessed further below.

As set out above, economic, social and environmental benefits drawn to my attention weigh considerably in favour of the proposal.

The proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed building known as [address], through an adverse impact on its setting. I have found that the public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of the designated asset.

The benefits of the scheme are considerable, particularly the delivery of a new house, but in this case, the identified harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the designated heritage asset provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The proposal does not therefore benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development by virtue of Paragraph 11(d)(i) and footnote 7 of the Framework.

When applying the normal planning balance, I find the harms outweigh the benefits. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no other material considerations that indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be dismissed.