Case Reference: 3282234

Costs Decision
Site visit made on 15 February 2022
by John Felgate BA(Hons) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Decision date: 1st March 2022
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/W0530/W/21/3282234
Land at St Peters Street, Caxton, Cambridgeshire CB23 3PS
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Messrs R and W Grain and Mrs E Reeve for a full award of
costs against South Cambridgeshire District Council.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of up to 9
self-build dwellings and associated garaging.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may only be awarded against
a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying
for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. The appellants submit that the Council acknowledges a significant shortfall in
provision for self-build and custom-build housing, but nevertheless sought to
turn away the opportunity presented by the appeal scheme to help remedy that
situation. In doing so, it is suggested that the Council also chose to disregard
SCLP Policy S/12, which states that if policies or allocations are not being
achieved, various mechanisms will be triggered, including action to bring
forward sites for development, through partnership with landowners and
developers.
4. Up to a point, I agree. There is no doubt that the Council was aware of the
shortfall, and as far as I can tell, they appear to have taken little positive action
to address that situation. That was clearly an unsatisfactory position, and
indeed remains so. Policy S/12 is designed as a tool to help rectify any
shortfalls in housing provision. To that extent it is conceivable, on the face of
it, that bringing that policy into the discussion could have led the Council to
reach a different decision. In my view however, that is largely a matter of
speculation.
5. In reaching their decision on the application, the Council quite properly
weighed up the need for the development against the conflicts with the SCLP’s
housing policies and the perceived impact on the character of the area. With
regard to the need, the Council was clearly aware of its duty to provide
sufficient self-build housing, under the 2015 Act, and took that duty into
account. Bringing Policy S/12 into consideration would not have changed the
target that the Council had to meet, or the timescale, as these were already set
by the legislation. Reference to Policy S/12 might possibly have focussed more
attention onto SCLP Policy S/9, which relates specifically to self-build, but as
that policy contains no overall target figure, it adds nothing in this case to the
requirements of the 2015 Act. It is therefore difficult to see any concrete way
in which Policy S/12 would have been likely to have changed the Council’s view
as to the relative weight to be given to the matters on either side of the
planning balance.
6. Consequently, in my view, the lack of explicit consideration to Policy S/12 in
this case should not logically have affected the Council’s decision in any
material way. It also follows from this that the lack of explicit consideration to
that policy was not unreasonable; and that in any event, this did not have a
bearing on the appellants’ need to pursue their case to an appeal.
7. Evidently, in reaching their decision, the relative weightings that the Council
gave to the various planning considerations, for and against, were different
from those that I have come to in my decision on the appeal. But these were
matters of planning judgement. The Council was entitled to its own view on
those matters, and although I might disagree, that does not mean that the
Council’s judgements were unreasonable.
8. I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that unreasonable behaviour took
place, causing the appellants unnecessary expense. The application for costs is
therefore refused.
J Felgate
INSPECTOR


Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 27 July 2023
by David Nicholson RIBA IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 1 August 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/W0530/W/21/3282234
Land at St. Peters Street, Caxton CB23 3PS
• 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
South Cambridgeshire District Council.
• The application Ref 20/04704/OUT, dated 16 November 2020, was refused by notice
dated 23 July 2021.
• The development proposed is: Outline planning for the erection of up to nine self-build
dwellings and associated garaging with some matters reserved except for access from
Rosemary Greene Close.
• This decision supersedes that issued on 1 March 2022. That decision on the appeal was
quashed by order of the High Court1.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed, and outline planning permission is granted for the
erection of up to 9 self-build dwellings and associated garaging on land at
St. Peters Street, Caxton, Cambridgeshire CB23 3PS, in accordance with the
terms of the application, Ref 20/04704/OUT, dated 16 November 2020, subject
to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.
Procedural matters
2. As above, the original Decision was quashed. The reasons for this were, in
short: that the Council made an erroneous reference in their appeal statement
to a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), when no such assessment was submitted;
and that the reference to an FRA was subsequently relied upon by the previous
Inspector thereby making a material mistake of fact.
3. The Judge also considered the setting of the listed building at Caxton Hall,
including with regard to harm acknowledged by the applicant, and harm to the
Hall from flooding. However, the Judge had no doubt that the Inspector had
complied with the Duty under s66(1) of the Act2, and all other duties as far as
required, using reasonable discretion.
4. The main parties subsequently agreed that the redetermination could be
carried out by way of written representations and submitted a Statement of
Common Ground (SoCG)3. Comments on the SoCG on behalf of the Claimant4,
included draft suggested conditions, were submitted shortly afterwards and I
1 [2023] EWHC 16 (Admin) dated 17 January 2023
2 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
3 Statement of Common Ground between the Council and Appellant dated June 2023
4 Comments on SoCG from Cerda on behalf of Ivor Harrison of Caxton Hall, dated June 2023
have taken both into account. Notwithstanding the Claimant’s suggestion that a
Hearing might be preferable, I am satisfied that I have all the necessary
information to reach my Decision.
Preliminary matters
5. The proposal is in outline form with all details reserved except for access, which
would be from Rosemary Greene Close.
6. A Unilateral Undertaking, dated 17 December 2021, would ensure that the
proposed dwellings would accord with the definition contained in the Self-Build
and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended). The Council does not
dispute that this would be effective, and I have taken it into account.
7. Following the Judgment, the Appellant submitted an FRA5 and the Claimant
submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)6.
Main Issues
8. As well as the main issues in the original Decision, I have added
- whether the scheme would harm heritage assets and their settings;
- the effect of the proposals on potential downstream flooding.
Reasons
9. A description of the site, surroundings and proposals are set out in the SoCG
and were summarised by the previous Inspector. The main parties agree that
the self-build position has not improved, indeed the number on the register
significantly exceeds year on year permissions. It was also common ground
that the village is not wholly lacking in sustainability credentials with recent
upgrades to footpath and cycleway connections.
10. Apart from an emerging plan, which the main parties agree is at an early stage
and should carry no weight, there have been no significant policy changes since
the quashed Decision. Having reviewed these, and for the same reasons, I
agree with the previous Inspector that the proposed development would be in
conflict with the most relevant development plan policies dealing with the
location of new housing, including Policies S/6, S/7, S/11 and T1/2 of the
South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (LP), adopted in 2018 .
11. Following my visit, I find that the site is closely linked to the village, despite
being beyond the village boundary, and that the scheme would have little
impact on the setting of the village or the adjacent countryside. Having
reviewed the previous Decision, I agree that there would be no significant harm
to the character or appearance of the village or the countryside and no conflict
with LP policies NH/2 and HQ/1, as previously set out.
12. The Council did not consider that any designated heritage asset7 would be
affected and did not submit detailed assessments. The previous Inspector
found little, but not no, intervisibility, concluding that the scheme would comply
with heritage policy. I have undertaken my own assessment, partly assisted by
the HIA. I find that the significance of the Caxton Conservation Area is largely
derived from its street patterns and wealth of historic buildings, focussed on
5 By MTC Engineering dated March 2023
6 Prepared by Dr Hoggett, March 2023
7 As defined in the National Planning Policy Framework
Ermine Street but including part of the drive to the Grade II* listed Caxton
Hall. Much of the significance of the latter is derived from the survival of
historic fabric, from the second half of the 17th Century with later extensions
and alterations, but also from its setting.
13. Caxton Hall stands around 100m from the site. As well as an entrance off St.
Peters Street, there is access via a long drive from Ermine Street running along
the site boundary and partly within the Conservation Area. Although the
ownership may have recently changed, the Hall stands at the end of the drive
and the avenue of mixed deciduous trees, probably planted in the 19th Century
and through which there are views to open fields on both sides, which would
have been planted to accentuate the access and so contributes to the Hall’s
significance.
14. I consider that the development would be likely to put the site within the
setting of both these heritage assets. In walking the length of the drive, I saw
that there are many gaps between the trees, looking into the site, with
doubtless more views in winter. I acknowledge that planting could increase the
level of screening in due course, but there would then be a loss of rural
context. I therefore find that the proposals would have a slight but unwelcome
impact on the context of the drive and so in turn to the contribution which the
setting of the Hall makes to its significance. As a feature of the conservation
area, its setting would also be slightly harmed.
15. For these reasons, I find that there would be slight harm to the settings of both
these designated heritage assets. In line with the Statutory duty, I give
considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting
of Caxton Hall, all the more so given its Grade II* listing. I note the conflict
with LP Policy NH/14, which protects the District’s historic environment
including heritage assets and their settings, and national heritage policy in the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 199, which requires
great weight to be given to the conservation of a designated heritage asset
when considering the impact of a proposed development on its significance. In
the context of this appeal, I find that the harm to both assets would fall
towards the bottom end of any spectrum of less than substantial harm and so
should be weighed against public benefits, as required by NPPF paragraph 202.
16. The site is also near a number of listed buildings along Ermine Street. On my
visit, I saw that there would be little intervisibility between the site and most of
these, including the Grade II* listed Crown House/The Old Post House which
stands 90m away. It significance lies mainly in its 16th/17th Century origins and
use as a coaching inn. Given the distance from the site, and the lack of
intervisibility, I conclude that the development would not detract from the
contribution that setting makes to the significance of this heritage asset.
17. The Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) concludes that the site is
less than 1ha in area, in Flood Zone 1, is not affected by surface water flooding
and is of low risk of flooding by any means. On this basis, the Council’s
drainage officer was content in principle that compliance with LP Policy CC/9
could be achieved by way of a suitably worded condition requiring technical
drainage details at reserved matters stage and that this would provide
sufficient control such that there would be no increase to flood risk elsewhere.
18. Following the Judgment, the FRA identified the site as undeveloped paddock,
with a drain along the western boundary running into the Bourn Brook, where
the Environment Agency surface water mapping shows the whole site to be at a
very low risk of surface water flooding. The FRA assessed that the fluvial flood
risk to any development would be less than 1 in 1,000, due to the constant fall
of the site towards the west; found that the risk from any other source would
also be low; and concluded that the site is of low risk of flooding by any means.
19. The FRA also considers the downstream risk of flooding as a result of increasing
discharge rates. As a scheme of fewer than 10 houses, it concludes that
surface water drainage could be dealt with by a condition, as found by the
Council’s Drainage Engineer. Nevertheless, it goes on to set out a Surface
Water Drainage Strategy to demonstrate full compliance with current guidance.
This identifies adequate space to incorporate attenuation sufficient to ensure
that discharge rates could be restricted such that there would be no adverse
impact upon flood risk to the surrounding area. In other words, a strategy to
ensure that the situation for downstream riparian properties would be no worse
than it is at present. This would depend on applying suitable conditions.
20. As a worst case, the Sustainable Drainage Strategy assumes that there would
be no infiltration through the ground and that the run-off from built
development would all run off the site. Including an allowance for climate
change, this would be restricted to a lower discharge rate than that of the
greenfield site. Using an indicative design8 the FRA calculates the necessary
attenuation volumes and concludes that these would reduce current discharge
rates in all events which would reduce pressure on downstream infrastructure,
particularly during extreme rainfall events, and reduce the downstream risk of
flooding. It lists the available techniques, calculates their effects and discusses
maintenance responsibilities of future owners and the management company.
21. From my study of the FRA, its appendices, and the view of the Council’s
Drainage Officer (that the concerns could be overcome by conditions), I am
satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that, in principle, the drainage
solution can comply with both local and national policy, and that the full
detailed design can be agreed at reserved matters stage. I note a
disagreement over the area of the site, which could affect the need for an FRA,
but as one has now been supplied, this is of little relevance.
22. On my visit I also studied the area with reference to the Claimant’s and others’
photographs. I saw that Caxton Hall lies close to Bourn Brook which is crossed
by the ford and where a depth of 3 feet was recorded. However, I also note
that the road rises steeply on either side such that when it was 3 feet deep, the
flood did not extend far either side. I also considered the photographs of flood
waters reaching the Hall itself and putting it, and its historic fabric in danger.
23. On the other hand, this is an existing situation, and the expert evidence
concludes that it would be possible to control new development on the appeal
site so as to prevent any increase in flood risk elsewhere, including to Caxton
Hall. Subject to conditions, the scheme would therefore comply with LP Policies
CC/8, that proposals must incorporate appropriate sustainable surface water
drainage systems for to the nature of the site, and CC/9.1d, that there would
be no increase in flood risk elsewhere, including limiting discharge of surface
water to natural greenfield rates or lower.
8 Set out in the Appendices
24. On the benefits side, for the reasons set out, I agree with the previous
Inspector that the need to increase the supply of self-build opportunities should
carry substantial weight. Even taking account of the s66(1) Duty and policies
set out above, I therefore find that the minor degree of harm to the
contribution setting makes to the significance of Caxton Hall, and to that of the
Conservation Area, would be outweighed by the public benefits of additional
self-build housing. On this issue, I find that the scheme would accord with NPPF
paragraph 202.
25. Turning to the overall balance, I find that the substantial weight to the benefits
of self-build housing on this particular site, where there would be no significant
harm to the character or appearance of the village or the countryside and
flooding objections could be overcome, would outweigh the conflict with
relevant development plan policies dealing with the location of new housing,
and the minor heritage harm, and that the appeal should succeed.
Conditions
26. In addition to those previously added, which should be attached for the same
reasons, more detailed conditions with regard to flood avoidance have been
suggested by the Claimant to minimise the risk of flooding. They would
supersede previous condition 4). It is now common ground that these should
be included, and I also find that these are necessary and so have attached
them. Partly to avoid renumbering, and for cross-referencing with the previous
Decision, I have combined these as a single new condition 4). The wording of
some conditions has been adjusted for clarity and brevity.
Conclusions
27. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I
conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to the attached conditions.
David Nicholson
INSPECTOR
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1) No development shall commence until details of the appearance, landscaping,
layout, and scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") for the relevant
dwelling plot, or for the communal areas of the site, have been submitted to the
local planning authority (LPA) and approved in writing. The development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
2) Applications for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the LPA not
later than 3 years from the date of this permission. The development shall be
commenced not later than 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the
reserved matters to be approved.
3) During the construction period, no machinery or plant shall be operated, no
works audible at the site boundary shall be carried out, and no construction-related
deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site, at any time except
between the following hours:
Mondays to Fridays 08.00 – 18.00
Saturdays 08.00 – 13.00.
4) No development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of foul and
surface water drainage has been submitted to the LPA and approved in writing. The
scheme design shall illustrate that it is feasible to limit discharge of surface water
(post development volume and peak rate) to natural rates or lower, in accordance
with local Policy CC/9: Managing flood Risk. The scheme shall include details of
how the foul and surface water systems are to be retained, managed and
maintained throughout the life of the development (including appropriate legal and
financial mechanisms). Thereafter, no dwelling shall be occupied until the foul and
surface water drainage infrastructure to serve it has been installed and brought
into operation. The layout and landscaping details to be submitted and approved
under the Reserved Matters application(s) shall include approval of the full details
of the proposed surface water drainage scheme required by this condition.
5) No dwelling shall be occupied until details of the arrangements for the future
management and maintenance of the internal estate roads, footways and any other
communal areas have been submitted to the LPA and approved in writing.
Thereafter, the roads footways and communal areas shall be managed, retained
and maintained in accordance with these approved details, either until adopted by
the Highway Authority, or for the life of the development.
6) No development, site clearance or site preparation shall be commenced until a
Construction Ecological Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to the LPA
and approved in writing. The CEMP shall include details of any ecologically sensitive
features or species present on the site, and proposed measures to mitigate the
impacts of the development on those features and species during construction. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP.
7) No dwelling shall be occupied until a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan
(LEMP) has been submitted to the LPA and approved in writing. The LEMP shall
include details of existing and proposed ecological features, and proposals for their
future management. Thereafter, these ecological features shall be managed in
accordance with the approved LEMP for the life of the development.
8) No development, site clearance, site preparation or site investigation works shall
commence until a tree and hedgerow protection scheme has been submitted to the
LPA and approved in writing. The scheme shall include details of measures for the
protection of the existing trees and hedgerows on and adjoining the site during the
course of the development. These measures shall be implemented in accordance
with the approved details. Where the approved details require the installation of
protective fencing or ground protection, these shall be put in place before any
development takes place, and before any equipment, machinery or materials are
brought on to the site; and shall be retained until these have been removed from
the site, following the completion of the relevant dwelling or part of the
development. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance
with this condition, and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered,
nor shall any excavation be made, without the written approval of the LPA.
9) The landscaping details to be submitted and approved for each dwelling or part
of the development, under Condition 1 above, shall include details of the proposed
timing for the implementation of those approved works. Thereafter, the
landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the programmes and
other details thus approved. If, within a period of five years from the date of
planting, any tree or plant dies, or becomes seriously damaged or diseased, or is
removed or lost for any reason, it shall be replaced in the next planting season
with another of the same size and species.
10) No development, site preparation or site clearance works shall take place until
a programme of archaeological work has been implemented, in accordance with a
written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the LPA.
11) No dwelling shall be occupied until it has been made capable of
accommodating fibre-optic, high-speed broadband cabling, in accordance with the
guidance note ‘Data Ducting Infrastructure for New Homes’ published by MHCLG in
2008, or any successor document published by HM Government prior to the
commencement of development.
12) All dwellings within the scheme shall be designed to achieve a 10% reduction
in carbon emissions, compared to a baseline figure to be calculated by reference to
the Building Regulations, through the use of on-site renewable energy and/or low
carbon technologies. No dwelling shall be occupied until the necessary measures to
achieve such a reduction have been installed and brought into operation, in
accordance with an Energy Statement for that dwelling which shall have been
submitted to the LPA and approved in writing. Thereafter, these energy reduction
measures shall be retained and maintained, in accordance with the manufacturer’s
specification, unless otherwise approved by the LPA.
13) All dwellings within the scheme shall be designed and constructed to
incorporate water saving fittings and systems, so as to be capable of achieving a
minimum water efficiency standard equivalent to 110 litres per person per day. No
dwelling shall be occupied until a Water Efficiency Statement for that dwelling has
been submitted to the LPA and approved in writing, confirming that this standard
has been met. Thereafter, the required water saving fittings and systems shall be
retained and maintained, in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification,
unless otherwise approved by the LPA.