Case Reference: 3262267

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 24 February 2021
by Benjamin Webb BA(Hons) MA MA MSc PGDip(UD) MRTPI IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 08 March 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/D1265/W/20/3262267
Land west of Waterlake and Grosvenor Road, Stalbridge, Dorset
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an
application for outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against Dorset Council.
• The application Ref 2/2020/0319/OUT, is dated 5 March 2020.
• The development proposed is for access (with all other matters reserved) for up to
90no. dwellings, dedicated open space and associated works with vehicular access from
Waterlake.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed, and outline planning permission is refused.
Procedural Matters
2. The appeal is made against the Council’s non-determination of the above
planning application. The Council has however set out a number of concerns
within its submissions, which I have taken into account in defining the main
issues below.
3. The application was made in outline, seeking planning permission for access,
with matters of scale, landscaping, layout and appearance reserved for future
consideration. Except with regard to the access, I have therefore treated the
plans submitted as indicative. Whilst the details shown are in any case limited,
the appellant has sought to place emphasis on the indicative layout as shown
on a revised plan. Thus, insofar as this shows the development distributed
across the site in 3 clusters, I consider that the plans provide a strong
indication of the general layout likely to be presented at reserved matters
stage. I have therefore placed considerable weight on this detail in assessing
the scheme, whilst also recognising scope for change.
4. The application followed dismissal of appeal APP/N1215/W/18/3203865 (the
previous appeal) relating to an outline scheme for 98 dwellings on much the
same site. Aside from a drop in the number of proposed dwellings, there are
however a number of important differences between the schemes, which I
summarise as principally being: the size of the current appeal site is smaller,
given that a field to the north is not this time included; there would be a single
point of access; and development is shown to indicatively cluster in the
southern part of the site, which was largely shown open within the previous
scheme. Insofar as it is relevant, I have taken the previous appeal into account
in my reasons below, but I have ultimately determined the appeal on the basis
of the individual merits of the scheme as presented.
5. Following the merger of local planning authorities across Dorset in 2019 the
Council is currently working on production of a new local plan (the emerging
Plan). This however remains at a very early stage, with an options consultation
currently ongoing. Limited weight can therefore be attached to the emerging
Plan in its current state, and I have necessarily made my decision with
reference to the adopted development plan. The latter remains that relating to
the former North Dorset District Council (NDDC) area.
6. The appellant submitted a Section 106 agreement (the S106) during the course
of the appeal. Its purpose is to secure the provision of affordable housing and
open space, and a broad range of financial contributions related to leisure,
recreation, education, healthcare and libraries. The S106 is however neither
signed nor dated, and as such it carries no weight.
Main Issue
7. The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for the proposed
development having regard to its effect on the character and appearance of the
area, including (a) the landscape and, (b) whether it would preserve or
enhance the character or appearance of Stalbridge Conservation Area (the
Conservation Area).
Reasons
Background
8. Policy 2 of the North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (the Local Plan) sets out the
spatial strategy for the former NDDC area. Through use of settlement
boundaries this seeks to achieve a sustainable distribution of development by
focusing new housing on 4 towns, with Stalbridge and 18 larger villages
identified as suitable for growth to meet local needs. As the site falls outside
the settlement boundary of Stalbridge it is located within the ‘countryside’ for
Local Plan purposes.
9. Policy 20 of the Local Plan further restricts housing outside settlement
boundaries to that which is affordable, or for which there is an overriding need
for a countryside location; something that Policy 2 terms development that
would ‘enable essential rural needs to be met’. As the development,
comprising both affordable and market housing, would not meet any of these
exceptions, it would conflict with Policies 2 and 20.
10. In this regard the Council’s concerns are that harm would be caused to the
character and appearance of the area, including the landscape and the
Conservation Area.
Landscape
11. The site occupies land within a series of agricultural fields. These are located
immediately adjacent to the southwestern edge of the settlement. At this point
the transition between the developed area of the Stalbridge and the
agricultural landscape beyond, is both abrupt and visually distinct.
12. The land within these 3 fields forms part of the upper slopes of a limestone
ridge, which is located at the edge of the expansive undulating landscape of the
Blackmore Vale. The best attempt at definition of the latter on paper exists at
national level, within the form of the ‘Blackmore Vale and Vale of Wardour’
character area. This largely overlaps the zone of theoretical visibility defined by
the appellant, and incorporates the relevant parts of the local landscape
character areas referenced by the Inspector in the previous appeal.
13. Ground levels rise towards the northwest and west across the site, with land
outside following much the same trend. As such the site mostly stands at a
lower level to development lying towards the north along Barrow Hill, but at a
higher level than existing development lying towards the east. This opens up
broad views from the site towards the landscape of the Vale on the east and
south sides of the settlement, and in turn causes the site to be exposed within
these landscapes. Exposure is greatest within the open landscape immediately
to the south, within which ground levels continue to fall before again rising,
and within which the site is clearly visible across a long distance. The site
furthermore forms an important foreground component of both long and
panoramic views from higher ground to both the north and west, including
from Wood Lane and Barrow Hill. In all these regards the site appears as small
but consistent component of the broader landscape.
14. At a more local scale, the site forms an attractive component of the land which
forms the immediate setting of the southwest side of the settlement. Its quality
and openness is appreciable from the footpath crossing the site, and from
adjoining roads and other rights of way, and it is accentuated by the
abruptness of transition noted above. Both in terms of its location within the
setting of the settlement, and in terms of location within the broader landscape
of the Blackmore Vale, the site therefore occupies a highly sensitive location.
15. For the purposes of paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(the Framework), the parties dispute whether or not the site should additionally
be considered to form part of a ‘valued landscape’. Whilst it is apparent that
housing development is currently occurring on much lower ground on the east
side of the settlement, I have been provided with no evidence that any
fundamental change in the character of the landscape has occurred since the
previous appeal. As such, the baseline for assessment remains more or less the
same as then. Taking account of this, the evidence before me, including the
appellant’s Landscape and Visual impact Assessment, and my own findings
above, I see no reason to find other than that the site forms part of a valued
landscape. Hence, I agree with the Inspector in the previous appeal, who found
the same.
16. Accordingly, I have taken paragraph 170 of the Framework into account,
which, aside from indicating that the intrinsic character and beauty of the
countryside should be recognised, states that decisions should contribute to
and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing
valued landscapes.
17. The scheme is presented in outline, with no clear indicative modelling of its
likely physical presence provided. It is however apparent that built form
ranging in scale from one up to 2.5 storeys, set within relatively dense clusters,
would have a pronounced physical and visual presence. This would be
accentuated by rising ground levels within the site, both relative to existing
development towards the east, and its high level of exposure towards the
south. This would be further emphasised given that the site and the clusters
within it, would form appreciable protrusions from the otherwise distinct
settlement edge, particularly when viewed from the south and west, but also as
perceived from Barrow Hill and the footpath running through the site. Whilst
thus appearing to sprawl both across and up the slope, the effect would also be
to suburbanise remaining fields immediately to north, which would become
spaces largely enclosed by development. Open space within the developed
parts of the site itself would otherwise be clearly subordinate to the housing
and would not alter the above negative impression.
18. The scheme would see the presence of development significantly increased
within the foreground of panoramic views across the site, from Wood Lane and
Barrow Hill. This would compromise the quality of these views, within which the
development would appear intrusive.
19. The scheme would seek to mitigate its impact through the incorporation of
open space and landscaping. Limited indicative details have however been
provided, and the details remains subject of resolution at reserved matters
stage. It is however apparent that the open space strategy indicatively shown
would increase the density of the residential clusters, and so too the
cumulative massing of built form within them. It is also apparent that the
planting of new hedgerows and trees would not be an effective means of
mitigating the visual impact of the development given the rising nature of the
landform. Nor would screening by vegetation, in any case, be likely to provide
a wholly reliable long-term year-round solution.
20. The boundary treatments along the southwestern edges of the settlement are
inconsistent in their current character and quality. A more consistent boundary
could be provided around the site as part of the scheme. This may or may not
integrate more directly with existing hedgerow boundaries depending upon
management. It would not however alter perception of the intrusive nature of
built form within the site as already considered above, in any significant way.
21. I acknowledge that the Inspector in the previous appeal expressed particular
concern in relation to the exposure of development in the 2 northernmost fields
of the site as then defined. It remains the case however that the Inspector did
not assess the impact of development clustered in the southern section of the
site, given that this was not proposed, and nor did he find that development
within the central section of the site would have been visually acceptable. The
fact that the current scheme would not include development in the 2
northernmost fields does not therefore indicate that it should be considered
acceptable based on a simple reading of the previous appeal decision.
22. For the reasons outlined above I conclude that the site would be unsuitable
location for the proposed development given the unacceptably harmful effect
that it would have on the character and appearance of the landscape. It would
therefore conflict with Policy 4 of the Local Plan, which seeks to protect the
landscape character of the District, additionally states that development will be
expected to respect valued landscapes, and which in each regard it is thus
consistent with the Framework.
Conservation Area
23. The Conservation Area boundary is widely drawn, including historic core
elements of Stalbridge, more modern development around the edges, and
parts of the immediate landscape setting beyond. The site lies within the latter.
Though largely contained within the boundary of the Conservation Area, the
southernmost portion of the site lies immediately outside.
24. Insofar as it is relevant to this appeal, the significance of the Conservation Area
resides in the historic layout of the town, and the collection and
interrelationship of historic buildings and spaces that it contains. As the site
does not form part of the townscape, the contribution that it makes to the
significance of the Conservation Area can be understood to lie in its function as
an aspect of the broader setting of the historic settlement. This is indeed
acknowledged within the Council’s characterisation.
25. Within this context, the series of fields of which the site forms part, are
enclosed by hedgerows of at least nineteenth century date. The broader layout
includes some old agricultural buildings at Barrow Hill Farm, and the existing
character is clearly that of well-established historic farmland.
26. The plots of many of the historic dwellings lining the west side of Thornhill
Road would once have backed onto open land adjoining that of which the site
forms part. The construction of a reasonably narrow band of modern housing
between these dwellings and the site, has however reduced and obscured the
immediacy of the relationship between the historic townscape and its
agricultural setting. The relationship nonetheless remains readily capable of
appreciation, particularly given the reasonably close proximity of Thornhill Road
to the site. This is indeed most apparent from Grosvenor Road, and further
experienced when walking to Wood Lane via the footpath between. It is also
more broadly appreciated in long views towards the Conservation Area from
the south, and in moving around the townscape via Barrow Hill to the north.
27. In this regard the contribution the site makes to the special interest and
significance of the Conservation Area lies in its continuing evocation of the
historic character of Stalbridge as a reasonably small rural settlement, set
within the broader context of the surrounding landscape of the Blackmoor Vale.
This historic character is less capable of appreciation in many other locations
around the town, where more extensive suburbanisation has occurred.
28. The development would result in the loss of historically open agricultural land
within the setting of the historic town, entailing increased suburbanisation
beyond its current southwestern edges. This would result in the erosion and
loss of rural character, diminishing the historic identity of the settlement. The
adverse effects would be accentuated by the high level of exposure of the site
within the surrounding landscape, and the intrusion that it would cause within
this context. This would harm the significance of the Conservation Area as a
whole. As the development would be identifiable as a whole, it follows that the
portion indicatively shown as occupying space within the southernmost part of
the site would exacerbate the impact of adjoining development. As such, harm
would also be caused to the Conservation Area’s setting. I therefore find that
the proposed development would fail to preserve the Conservation Area, and
that less than substantial harm would be caused to its significance.
29. Whilst there is broad consensus that less than substantial harm would be
caused, the parties disagree over whether this should be further categorised
according to a ‘spectrum’. The Inspector in the previous appeal also speculated
over the existence of a ‘sliding scale’. However, the Framework, and advice
within the Planning Practice Guidance refers to neither. The latter simply
indicates that the extent of the harm may vary and should be clearly
articulated. That being so, my assessment above is sufficient.
30. I attach considerable importance and weight to the harm that would be caused
to the significance of Conservation Area by development within it, and great
weight to the harm that would be caused to the significance of Conservation
Area by development within its setting. In accordance with paragraph 196 of
the Framework, it is necessary to balance this harm against the public benefits
of the appeal scheme.
31. The development would provide up to 90 dwellings, up to 36 of which would be
affordable. Notwithstanding conflict with Policy 2, this would comply with a
40% requirement for affordable housing set out in Policy 8 of the LP. In general
terms the development would make a sizeable contribution towards addressing
a shortfall in the Council’s 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites (5YHLS).
This is recorded as 3.3 years in the Council’s latest Annual Monitoring Report,
whilst recent poor delivery is demonstrated by a 59% score in the latest
Housing Delivery Test. It could also help to address the high level of need for
affordable housing which exists across North Dorset.
32. In local terms however, the Council indicates that extant permissions already
provide for 227 dwellings in Stalbridge during the Local Plan period, of which
108 would be affordable. This would more than satisfy the need for 53
affordable dwellings recorded in the Housing Register. It would also represent a
significant proportion of the 825 dwellings planned for the countryside,
including Stalbridge and 18 larger villages, set out in Policy 6 of the Local Plan.
Whilst this is neither a target nor minimum figure, it has been both met and
substantially exceeded since the time that the application subject of the
previous appeal was determined. Considered cumulatively, the appeal scheme
could thus result in delivery of substantially more dwellings than were
envisaged for the town over the Local Plan period. As this would not cater for
any clear local need, it would inevitably draw people into the town.
33. The appellant claims that this would help to address an ageing and falling
population within Stalbridge. The Council has otherwise separately
acknowledged that a drop in the labour force across North Dorset can only be
resolved by inward migration. Both can be strategically addressed by growth.
However, the overprovision of housing within the town would not necessarily
have a positive social, economic or environmental effect if future occupants
were required to travel elsewhere in order to satisfy their day to day needs.
34. In this regard the development would support construction jobs over the short
term, and future occupants would also provide some long term support for
existing facilities and services within Stalbridge. But facilities and services
within the town are otherwise limited in diversity and scale, as is reflected by
its position within the hierarchy. The development would not change this. Nor
is there any certainty that it would generate any jobs within Stalbridge. It is
therefore likely that future occupants of the development would need to travel
elsewhere in order to fully satisfy their day to day needs, including for
employment. Whilst this would limit any contribution that future occupants
might make to the social and economic vitality of Stalbridge, it would also
undermine the environmental sustainability of the development.
35. The development would be clearly contrary to the strategic rationale
underpinning the settlement strategy, which as set out above, seeks to focus
growth on large towns, and in this regard is consistent with the objective of
managing patterns of growth in the interests of sustainability set out within the
Framework.
36. I acknowledge that within the context of the emerging Plan, both an adjusted
position in the settlement hierarchy, and additional growth, is currently
envisaged for Stalbridge. The hierarchy would however differ as a whole given
that it would no longer relate solely to settlements within the former NDDC
area. The emerging Plan is also set to extend 7 years beyond the end date of
the current Local Plan, and would thus cater for growth over a different period.
It is otherwise apparent that a strategy of addressing housing requirements
through urban extensions and site allocations is favoured, and with regard to
Stalbridge, no such allocation has been proposed for the appeal site. Indeed,
the evidence referenced in the submissions shows that this has been ruled out
on heritage grounds. Whilst the emerging Plan currently attracts limited weight
in itself, the evidence before me does not provide a sound basis upon which to
find that the development would sustainably meet any future local need.
37. For the above reasons, notwithstanding the level of contribution that the
development would or could make towards meeting general needs for both
market and affordable housing, I attach limited weight to the benefits.
38. I appreciate that the Inspector in the previous appeal attached greater weight
to the supply of housing than have I, most particularly in relation to the
provision of affordable housing. This was indeed responsible for ‘just tipping
the balance’ in that case. The 5YHLS supply position was the same at that
time, and provision of affordable housing would similarly have been no more
than compliant with Policy 8. However, as previously noted, at the time the
application subject of the previous appeal was determined, less progress had
been made in delivering the strategy set out within Policy 6 of the Local Plan,
and an unfulfilled local need for affordable housing appears to have existed.
Different considerations therefore applied.
39. The appellant states that the scheme would provide a surplus of public open
space when set against Council requirements. However, given that the scheme
layout and landscaping are each reserved matters, it remains to be confirmed
how much open space would actually be provided, and in what form. The
extent to which such open space would be both useable, accessible and likely
to see use by people from outside the development is also unclear. The latter
considerations similarly apply in relation to any play equipment located within
such space. As such I attach very limited weight to these considerations.
40. For the most part the site consists of land in apparently intensive agricultural
use. I therefore have no doubt that ecological enhancement could be achieved
simply by provision of more varied planting within the development. Whilst a
range of enhancements are also proposed, ecological enhancements could
equally, if not more effectively, be achieved within the context of the site in its
current use. Indeed, there is no particular reason why this could not include
the planting of hedgerows amongst other more sensitive land management
measures. As such, the development is not necessary to deliver ecological
enhancement of the site. Consequently, the potential for the development to
deliver ecological enhancement is a matter to which I again attach very limited
weight.
41. Insofar as the scheme landscaping has otherwise been advanced as a public
benefit, given my findings in relation to landscape matters above, this is not a
consideration to which I can attach any weight.
42. As summarised above, one purpose of the S106 was to secure payment of
contributions. Even if the S106 had been complete, the primary purpose of
these contributions would have been to mitigate and cater for the demands
directly generated by its future occupants. On this basis the potential for any
broader public benefit would have been limited in both scope and weight.
43. In a similar way, the payment of Council tax by future occupants of the
development would not give rise to any distinct public benefit. This is because
it is used to fund Council and other services, whose level of use would increase
as a result of the development. The same would most likely also apply to New
Homes Bonus payments, which the Council indicates would be used to further
subsidise Council services.
44. In summary, I have attached no more than limited weight to the benefits
outlined above. This must however be reduced when taking into account the
fact that they could only be delivered by causing unacceptable landscape harm,
and that not all have been secured. That being so, I attach no more than very
limited weight to the public benefits of the scheme overall. Either way, the
public benefits of the scheme are insufficient to outweigh the harm that would
be caused to the significance of the Conservation Area. This provides a clear
reason for refusing planning permission.
45. For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the site would be an unsuitable
location for the proposed development having regard to the unacceptably
harmful effect that it would have on the Conservation Area, whose character or
appearance would not be preserved or enhanced, and whose setting would not
be conserved. The development would therefore conflict with Policy 5 of the
Local Plan, which seeks to sustain and enhance the significance of heritage
assets, and which is, in this regard, consistent with the Framework.
Other Matters
46. In view of the Council’s 5YHLS position, my attention has been drawn to the
tilted balance set out in paragraph 11 of the Framework. I acknowledge that
the Inspector in the previous appeal undertook the tilted balance. This was
however a product of his different findings in relation to paragraph 196, as
covered above. My own findings in relation to heritage policy provide a clear
reason for refusing planning permission, and thus, having regard to footnote 6
of the Framework, the tilted balance does not apply.
Conclusion
47. The proposal does not accord with the development plan, and it would cause
unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the
landscape and the Conservation Area. There are no other considerations which
alter or outweigh these findings. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I
conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Benjamin Webb
INSPECTOR