Appeal 6007865

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be consistent with development plan policies relating to housing in rural areas, including regarding its effect on the character and appearance of the countryside; • whether the provision of biodiversity net gain is required and, if it is, whether this is suitably provided for; and • whether the proposed development would be at risk of flooding.

The appeal site lies to the west side of [address] within countryside near to Misterton. To the north and west is the [name], beyond which there are houses to either side of the road. The site is occupied by a two-storey dwelling, with a long single-storey rear range. It is part of a small grouping of homes, north of the junction with [address], that are surrounded by paddocks and other agricultural land. This part of the district is in the [name] – Policy Zone 02: Walkeringham, as defined by the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment (2009). Key actions for this zone include conserving the character and setting of the canal, and for new developments to reflect the local brick built vernacular. Due to the proximity of the canal to the site, its setting encompasses the general characteristics described above, but it is enclosed on either side by mature hedgerow and tree planting.

Despite the modest size and scale of the existing dwelling, the land around it falls away and tapers down to the canal. Its elevated position means the original house is prominent in views from the towpath through gaps in planting. Similarly, some of the site’s frontage is open, so it is also visible from the footpath along [address]. However, the current appearance of the dwelling and the site’s environs diminishes the contributions made to the immediate landscape and canal’s setting.

Policy ST2 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan 2020-20381 (LP) is supportive of proposals for replacement dwellings, where this is of a similar size and scale to the original dwelling and would be located on the footprint of the original dwelling, unless an alternative position within the existing residential curtilage would have no adverse impact on the wider setting. The policy also requires such schemes are consistent with several criteria, the majority of which relate to principles of design.

The proposed dwelling would be T-shaped, with the top being a single storey range with rooms in the roof space. This would occupy the footprint of the original property. The remainder of the building would project from there further northeast and be of two storeys, again with rooms in the roof. Policy ST2 does not state replacement dwellings cannot occupy other land beyond the footprint of the original dwelling, and the proposal’s location would not be an alternative location within the site. As such, this aspect of the current scheme would broadly comply with the policy. Notwithstanding this, even though the proposal may be smaller than a previous scheme, it would remain of significantly greater proportions than the original, so it could not reasonably be adjudged to be of similar size or scale to it. Moreover, despite the appearance of the site and original dwelling, the latter is somewhat unassuming in comparison to the size and scale of the proposal.

The application drawings do not include sections of the proposal in relation to the levels within the site, but existing drawings reflect what I observed on site as the rear range of the original dwelling steps down. By contrast, the proposed dwelling is shown on level ground, and the appellants do not dispute that land levels would likely need to be raised to accommodate this. Moreover, although it would be built of red brick and slate, and incorporate varied elements of scale, the composition of the proposed dwelling would appear domineering and harmfully intrude into the immediate landscape, particularly the canal’s countryside setting experienced from its towpath and from [address]. Even if planting within the site is retained and added to, this would be unlikely to sufficiently soften the proposal’s appearance to mitigate against its harmful effects in any meaningful way.

Juliette balconies do not appear to be commonplace within the immediate locality, but the inclusion of two such features at the rear of the dwelling would not, of themselves, stand out as harmful elements of the overall composition of the building. Equally, the southwest side elevation would be mainly solid but would face the driveway and other land adjacent to the boundary of the dwelling to the south. Given this and its orientation within the site, although it would be a plain elevation it would be unlikely to appear oppressive in the overall context of the site. However, the absence of harm in relation to these aspects of the design of the dwelling would not alter my findings in relation to this main issue.

I have considered the size and appearance of the dwellings immediately north of the canal. Despite some of these being closer to the canal, they are nevertheless considerably smaller in scale, so are not comparable with the proposal. In any event, their presence in the locality would not justify the harm that would be caused by the appeal scheme. 1 Dated 29 May 2024.

In conclusion, the proposal would not be consistent with development plan policies relating to housing in rural areas, including regarding its effect on the character and appearance of the countryside. This would conflict with the aims of LP Policy ST2 regarding the principles for replacement dwellings in the countryside, along with its design aims regarding the distinctiveness of the surrounding countryside. As a key component of the landscape character policy zone, the harm to the canal’s setting would also fail to protect or enhance the zone’s distinctive qualities, as required by LP Policy ST35. Furthermore, the proposal would fail to be of a high quality design, as it would not respect the local context and complement the scale and landform of the built form in the surrounding area. I afford these conflicts with policy significant weight.

On 12 February 2024, the provisions of the Environment Act 2021 relating to biodiversity net gain (BNG) came into force for major developments, and on 2 April 2024 this was extended to include smaller sites.

Under Article 7(1A) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, applications for planning permission submitted after those dates are required to be accompanied by certain information relating to BNG. The information required includes a completed biodiversity metric calculation, showing the biodiversity value of the on-site habitat, and various other related details which are listed in full in sub-paragraph (c) of the above Article. This requirement applies to all planning applications, except where one of the exemptions specified in the legislation applies. These include an exemption for self-build or custom build housing developments, and this is indicated on the planning application form for the proposal.

The initial occupation of the proposed dwelling could potentially be controlled by way of a Section 106 agreement or undertaking, so as to ensure that the scheme was carried out as a self-build or custom-build development, in compliance with the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 and the Planning Practice Guidance. An executed and certified copy of an agreement should be received at the time of making an appeal. However, in this case, the unilateral undertaking received with the appeal is not signed or dated, so there is no certainty that the proposed dwelling would be a self-build development.

Paragraph 18.2.1 of the relevant Procedural Guide2 states the Inspector will not delay the issue of a decision to wait for an obligation to be executed unless there are very exceptional circumstances. There is nothing before me to indicate any very exceptional circumstances exist to delay my decision for this to be completed. Furthermore, a planning condition would not be suitable for the same purpose, as it would fail to satisfy the tests outlined in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework3 (the Framework). Equally, the biodiversity gain condition cannot be imposed without the required information, and it does not apply because a statutory exemption applies in relation to this form of development.

Given my findings in relation to the first main issue, and the outcome of the planning balance below, there would be no practical purpose to also delaying the appeal to secure the information, as it would be unlikely to have any bearing on 2 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026. 3 December 2024, with updated content of 7 February 2025. the outcome of the appeal. This would also be likely to amount to procedural unfairness for the Council, given that this would amount to new evidence not previously considered as part of the planning application.

Accordingly, in the absence of a completed legal agreement to secure the proposal as a self-build development, the proposed development would not make suitable provision for biodiversity net gain. Hence, it would conflict with LP Policy ST38, which requires all new development to provide for biodiversity net gain on site. I also afford this conflict with policy significant weight.

The Council has indicated that the site is situated within [name] 2 and 3 alongside the canal. While there is no recognised flood risk assessment before me as part of the appeal, the flood risk mapping provided indicates that part of the curtilage of the proposal would remain in those zones. However, like the existing dwelling on the site, the access to the site and the built form of the proposal would both remain within [name] 1. There is also no substantive evidence before to suggest that it would not be possible to design schemes of foul and surface water drainage to avoid run-off to nearby land or buildings.

As such, the proposed development would not be at risk of flooding and it would accord with LP Policy ST50, which requires demonstration that the development, including the access and egress, will be safe for its lifetime, without increasing or exacerbating flood risk elsewhere. For similar reasons, the proposal would also accord with the requirement of paragraph 181 of the Framework.

The proposal would result in a dwelling with improved energy efficiency in comparison with the original and its replacement could be more cost effective than a scheme to extend and improve the build quality of the original. However, there are no firm details before me to demonstrate these points, which limits the weight I can afford these as environmental and social benefits of the development. There are likely to be temporary benefits to the economy throughout the construction period associated with employment and procurement of materials, but these would be minor in nature given the magnitude of the scheme. I am also only able to afford very limited weight to the provision of a self-build dwelling given that this would not be secured through a signed and executed legal agreement.

There would be plenty of space within the site to ensure vehicles can be turned and parked to avoid any implications for highway safety. The spacing within the site, amount of accommodation, and separation from neighbouring properties would ensure that there would not be harm to living conditions of neighbours or occupiers of the development, including due to housing standards. I have also found that there would not be conflict in terms of the risk of flooding. Given these all amount to absences of harm they would neither weigh for nor against the proposal. Similarly, despite the appearance of the original dwelling and site, given that the proposal would be harmful to its surroundings, the replacement of the dwelling in the manner proposed would not amount to a benefit of the scheme.

The evidence contained in the [name] is conflicting regarding the current position on the deliverable supply of housing. Even if the Council is not able to demonstrate 5-year’s supply as required by the Framework, having regard to the benefits set out above and despite the fact the proposal is for a replacement dwelling, there would be significant weight afforded to the identified harms. The adverse impacts of granting permission would therefore significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework. In particular, the harm that would be caused by the proposal would fail to achieve a well-designed place.

Despite my conclusion regarding flood risk, the proposal would conflict with the development plan in relation to the approach to housing in rural areas, including regarding its effect on the character and appearance of the countryside; and the provision of biodiversity net gain. This would result in conflict with the development plan, as a whole, and the material considerations referred to above do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, for these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.