Case Reference: 3237885

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 3 December 2019
by K A Taylor MSC URP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 2nd January 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/F2415/W/19/3237885
Site on Kimcote Road, Walton, Leicestershire LE17 5RR
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Harborough District Council.
• The application Ref 19/01015/OUT, dated 19 June 2019, was refused by notice dated
19 August 2019.
• The development proposed is two new semi-detached dwellings.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural Matter
2. The application was submitted in outline. The application form indicates that all
matters are reserved for future approval. Details of the layout for the proposed
dwellings, which includes two semi-detached houses with access either side
was submitted with the application for illustrative purposes only, but the
Planning Statement indicates this level and type of housing proposed.
Main Issues
3. The main issues are (i) whether the appeal site forms a suitable location for
development, having regard to the national and local planning policies; and (ii)
the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the
area.
Reasons
Location of development
4. The site is a parcel of land directly adjacent to Kimcote Road, which is to the
south of the village of Walton, which is designated as a ‘sub-selected rural
village’ and the appeal site is therefore treated as being within the countryside.
The appeal site is currently in use as an allotment garden and is enclosed by
hawthorn hedging, trees and some post and rail fencing. Due to land levels it
sits at a lower level to Kimcote Road and to the rear of the site adjoins pasture
fields. Directly opposite the site are a number of residential properties.
5. There is little in the way of day to day services and facilities within Walton
itself. The village does not have a bus service, although there is a public house
and a village hall. In terms of shops / other services these are located within
other settlements and the Council confirms these are not within at least 800m
walking distance.
6. Paragraph 78 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)
promotes sustainable development ‘housing should be located where it will
enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities’. Whilst paragraph 110,
advises that applications for development should ‘give priority first to
pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with
neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to
high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area
for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that
encourage public transport use’.
7. I note the appellant acknowledges that it is only 3.5miles from Lutterworth and
that future occupiers would not need to travel long distances by car and that
cycle journeys would be comfortable taking some 15-20 minutes. Nonetheless,
future occupants of the development would be largely reliant on the private
motor car to access services and facilities.
8. Furthermore the roads to Lutterworth including Kimcote Road which would be
utilised to access nearby services and facilities are narrow, with the majority
having limited footways and are unlit, which would likely to result in
treacherous conditions for road users during the winter months or adverse
weather fronts, whilst there is no nearby bus stops in the village, or acceptable
walking distances to access public transport to Lutterworth. On this basis, the
proposed development would not enhance or maintain the vitality of the rural
community of Walton and would lead to the use of unsustainable travel modes.
9. I acknowledge that the development would be located to the nearby village
boundary and there are existing properties along Kimcote Road. Having had
regard to the High Court judgement1regarding paragraph 55 (now paragraph
79) of the Framework, this physical location would not result in new isolated
homes in the countryside that the Framework seeks to avoid. Thus, there
would be no conflict with paragraph 79 of the Framework. Nevertheless, there
would still be minor negative environmental and social effects arising from the
location in terms of the use of natural resources and the accessibility of local
services.
10. Policy SS1 of the Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, adopted April 2019 (HLP),
sets out the spatial strategy for the district and to manage planned growth to
direct development to appropriate locations, in accordance with the settlement
hierarchy. Therefore, Walton falls within the definition of other villages, rural
settlements and the countryside where development will be strictly controlled.
Where rural villages and other settlements which do not meet the criteria for
identification as selected rural villages, these are not considered sustainable
locations for development and are at the bottom of the settlement hierarchy.
They are considered as countryside and as such are assessed against policies
GD3 and GD4 of the HLP.
11. Policy GD4 of the HLP restricts new housing in the countryside. New residential
development will only be permitted where housing on small sites of no more
than 4 dwellings are within or physically and visually connected to settlements
1 Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2017] EWHC 2743
(Admin)
and which meet a local need for housing of a particular type, including small
dwellings for the elderly and starter homes, providing this has been evidenced
through a rural housing needs survey or a neighbourhood plan. It also allows
dwellings where it meets the needs of a rural worker, conversion of an existing
building or rebuilding of an existing dwelling or is of an exceptional design.
When assessed against the criteria in Policy GD4 the proposed development
would not fall within any of those exceptions and there is no identified or
evidence for local need which has been put forward, furthermore the
application itself, sets out the proposed development would be for market
housing.
12. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would
not be within an appropriate location for new housing, it would have poor
accessibility for residents to access the necessary services and facilities, which
would necessitate a greater reliance upon less sustainable forms of travel. It
would be contrary to Policies SS1 and GD4 of the HLP, 2019. These policies,
amongst other matters, seek to direct new development to within the defined
settlement hierarchy; sustainable locations and strictly control new housing
development in the countryside.
Character and Appearance
13. Walton is a linear village and the site is to the south of the settlement.
Although there is existing ‘ribbon’ development on the opposite side of the road
to the appeal site along Kimcote Road, these are set back from the highway
and have good sized front gardens. There is no residential development which
directly adjoins the appeal site, this is located some distance along Kimcote
Road and Hall Lane and is of a limited scale. The site is enclosed partially by
small fencing, but its overall appearance is of open nature, with trees and
hedgerows contributing and defining the sites boundaries and its rural assertion
which positively contributes to the immediate rural character. The appeal site
currently enables substantial views of the fields and open countryside located
directly to the rear of the site which enables it to provide a spatial gap of
unbuilt development, providing a positive gradual entrance into the village.
14. The indicative layout shows that the dwellings would be positioned directly to
front the highway and would be semi-detached. Although no details of height
and design are provided the introduction of residential development at this
location and built form within the appeal site would erode the characteristics,
particularly of the hedgerow buffer and would interrupt and be at odds from
the immediate settlement pattern, encroaching and eroding the countryside,
particularly reducing the openness that characterises the rural setting of the
area and the entrance to the village. I acknowledge it would broadly follow the
existing field boundaries, nonetheless it would not be seen as being well-
related to the existing spur of development and I consider it could not be
justified as a logical extension to the settlement.
15. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed
development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would
be contrary to Policy GD8 of the HLP, 2019. The Policy, amongst other matters
requires that development achieves a high standard of design; being inspired
by, respecting and enhancing both the local character and distinctiveness of
the settlement; respecting the context and characteristics of the individual site,
street scene and wider local environment to ensure that it is integrated as far
as possible into the existing built form.
Other Matters
16. The appellant contends that the appeal site amounts to previously developed
land (PDL) based on an historic extract map, indicating a previous building was
on the site. The Framework supports development that makes efficient use of
land, through the definition of PDL, which includes land occupied by a
permanent structure including the curtilage of developed land, however this
does not go without being caveated. It also excludes land that is or was last
occupied by agricultural buildings. The main parties differ on whether the site
is/would amount to PDL. The evidence before me is inconclusive, but even if I
were to consider the site amounts to PDL, the proposal would not make
efficient use of land, given the harm I have found in respect of character and
appearance, it would not maintain the area’s prevailing character and so would
not accord with paragraph 122 of the Framework.
17. The appellant makes reference to the site being technically in conflict with
development plan policies but that the proposal would not undermine the
Council’s overall development strategy and settlement hierarchy due to the
modest scale of development and would not set an undesirable precedent for
future housing. The Framework clearly sets out the approach to plan-making
and decision-taking in paragraph 11. Paragraph 12 sets out ‘the presumption in
favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the
development plan as the starting point for decision making. Where a planning
application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan…permission should
not usually be granted’. For the reasons I have already set out the proposed
development conflicts with policies within the HLP and, I have, in any case,
reached my own conclusion on the appeal proposal on the basis of the evidence
before me.
18. I note that local residents have expressed additional concerns about the
proposed development, including increase in traffic, car parking, loss of privacy
and views. However, the Council did not raise these points as reasons for
refusal and I have no substantive evidence to support those concerns. Given
my findings in relation to the main issues, it is not necessary to consider these
matters in detail.
Conclusion and Planning Balance
19. I have found that the appeal site would not form a suitable location for
development and the scheme would cause harm to the character and
appearance of the area identified would be significant. Against this has to be
the balanced factors in favour of the proposed development.
20. The provision of two additional dwellings would make a positive contribution to
the Council’s housing land supply when weighed in the overall planning
balance, albeit that the contribution would be limited due to the quantum of
development proposed. There would be a small social benefit in providing the
two housing units. Economic advantages would also arise from the construction
and occupation of the new houses and I also acknowledge the appellants
comments on small local builders.
21. From the evidence before me, the Council can demonstrate a 5-year housing
land supply. This has not been disputed by the appellant and I have no reason
to disagree with the Council. I am satisfied that the totality of harm identified
outweighs the cumulative limited benefits of the proposed residential
development. Consequently, the proposal would not amount to sustainable
development when considered against the development plan read as a whole.
22. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, I
conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
K A Taylor
INSPECTOR