Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 March 2019

by Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19th June 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/D3505/W/18/3205344 Land north of the B1070, Holton St Mary, CO7 6NN. • 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 Mr Andrew Philpot of APT Philpot Ltd, against the decision of Council. • The application Ref DC/17/05127, dated 10 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 December 2017. • The development proposed is described as erection of 9 dwellings and associated access on land north of the B1070, Holton St Mary, .

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary matters

2. The planning application was made by APT Farming Ltd, although the Appellant details to refer to Mr Andrew Philpot of APT Philpot Ltd. APT Farming Ltd has since confirmed that APT Philpot Ltd are carrying out the Appeal on their behalf.

3. The proposal is for outline planning permission, with layout, scale, appearance and landscaping all being reserved matters. Means of access is included in the proposal and this is shown on drawing No. DR1. Drawing Nos. 2015-685-002 and 2015-685-003 show a potential site layout and associated roof forms and landscaping. As indicated in the submitted Design and Access statement these drawings and other details contained in the Design and Access statement are illustrative only, to advise on the design philosophy which will form the basis of the reserved matters planning application. The Appeal has been dealt with on this basis.

4. A signed Unilateral Undertaking relating to the proposal has been submitted and this is dealt with later on in this decision.

5. Since the Appeal application was refused the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 has been replaced. Both the Appellant and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and the National Planning Policy Framework February 2019 (Framework). In addition, they have had the opportunity to comment on the 2018 Housing Delivery Test results; the Updated guidance on how to assess housing needs and the 2018 based results of the ratio of median house price to median gross

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/D3505/W/18/3205344

annual work-place based earnings for and Wales. These documents have been taken into account in the consideration of this Appeal.

Main Issue

6. The main issue is whether the proposed development would be acceptable in principle in this location, having regard to local and national planning policy.

Reasons

Whether the proposed development would be acceptable in principle in this location, having regard to local and national planning policy.

7. The Appeal site is located within the countryside and comprises part of an open and arable field, with an agricultural barn within the site. The Appeal site adjoins a linear row of dwellings on one side, arable land and a reservoir to the rear and arable land with a row of dwellings on the other side. The Appeal site fronts onto Hadleigh Road which links the settlement to , some 1.7 miles away. On the opposite side of the road to the Appeal site is an area of farmland and the part of the grounds to Holton Hall, which is a large dwelling set within extensive landscaped grounds.

8. The Appeal site lies outside but adjacent to the settlement boundary for Holton St Mary and therefore in an area of countryside. Policy CS2 of the Babergh Core Strategy (CS) sets out the strategic settlement structure for the District and this includes where new housing will be allowed during the Plan period. Holton St Mary is identified as a hinterland village. It is part of the Capel St Mary functional cluster of smaller villages, which also includes Bently, , , and . These villages are identified as having a limited range of facilities, but which are suitable to accommodate some development to help meet any needs within them. In the countryside outside the defined hinterland villages development will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances subject to a proven justifiable need.

9. Policy CS1 of the CS advocates a presumption in favour of sustainable development and Policy CS15 of the CS addresses implementing sustainable development within the District. It sets out various criteria that proposals should address. This includes minimising the need to travel by car; protecting air quality; minimising energy demand; ensuring that an appropriate level of services, facilities and infrastructure are available or provided to serve the proposed development; retaining, protecting or enhancing local services, facilities and local communities; protecting and enhancing biodiversity; respecting the landscape and heritage assets; and making a positive contribution to local character, shape and scale of an area.

10. Specifically, in relation to hinterland villages Policy CS11 of the CS states that proposals will be approved in hinterland villages where they are able to demonstrate a close functional relationship to the settlement; are appropriate in size/scale, layout and character; relate well to the settlement pattern; meet a proven local need, such as affordable housing or targeted market housing tat is identified in a development plan document; and support local services. In addition, the scheme should score positively against Policy CS15 and certain matters should be addressed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. This includes the landscape, environmental and heritage characteristics and the locational context of the village, along with a sequential approach to site

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate2 Appeal Decision APP/D3505/W/18/3205344

selection and the cumulative impact of development in the area in respect of social, physical and environmental impacts.

11. The Rural Development & Core Strategy Policy CS11 – Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and the supporting text to Policy CS11 of the CS clarify that Policy CS11 of the CS provides for greater flexibility to the built-up area boundaries and development beyond them. They advise that the capacity for hinterland villages to accommodate development will vary and that for some there is no clear focus for development and facilities and services to support development may not be present. It is important that any development in hinterland villages is supported by an appropriate level of infrastructure.

12. The Appeal site adjoins the built up area boundary of Holton St Mary and the depth of the site and the density of the proposed scheme would respect that of the adjoining row of dwellings to the east. Whilst the application is only in outline form, I am satisfied that nine dwellings could be designed and sited on the site in a manner which respected its immediate and wider setting. For these reasons, I agree with the Council that the proposed housing would simply appear as a logical extension to the defined settlement boundary of Holton St Mary. Whilst it would encroach into the open countryside, it would not have a materially adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape. In these respects, the proposal does not conflict with Policy CS11 of the CS.

13. However, it is clear that in this case the settlement has very limited services, no shop or school, only a church and church hall, and whilst there is a small business park on the outskirts of the village, few details are provided regarding its employment potential for the occupiers of the proposed dwellings. Although a bus route runs past the Appeal site little evidence has been submitted regarding the frequency and destination of buses throughout the week. As a consequence of these factors the occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be highly likely to be reliant on private vehicles. Furthermore, no demonstrable local housing need in the village has been identified. Similarly, very few details of how the proposal would affect the balance between homes and employment in the village, or the cumulative impact of the proposal on this cluster of hinterland villages have been submitted. This includes, the benefits for the hinterland villages that would result from the proposal.

14. As stated in the SPD, not all hinterland villages are suitable for new development, particularly where there is no demonstrable local need or facilities to serve the additional dwellings. From the evidence before me and in the absence of any demonstrable local need either within Holton St Mary, which has a very limited range of facilities, or within the Capel St Mary functional cluster of settlements, the proposal would not in my view be a suitable location for housing and would conflict with the Council’s settlement policy.

15. For these reasons I find that the proposal would conflict with Policies CS2, CS11 and CS15 of the CS the aims of which are set out above. It would also conflict with Policy CS3 of the CS which states that in the countryside, outside the defined hinterland villages, development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances subject to a proven justifiable need.

16. These policies are consistent with the economic, social and environmental objectives of sustainable development as set out in the Framework. The Framework advocates a plan-led approach and states that planning policies and

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate3 Appeal Decision APP/D3505/W/18/3205344

decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions, but in doing so should take account of local circumstances, to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area. Also, that whilst the Government is seeking to significantly boost the supply of homes, planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment.

17. The Appellant has stated that the Appeal site is identified as a suitable site for development in the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). However, no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the Appeal site is currently identified as suitable and appropriate for housing development in a current SHLAA or Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA). More importantly, it has not been demonstrated that the site is suitable for a housing scheme that would not conflict with the above mentioned policies in the CS.

18. I conclude that the proposal would be unacceptable in principle in this location, having regard to local and national planning policy. The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and in particular with Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS11 and CS15 of where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. I also find conflict with policies in the Framework which seek to ensure that new housing in rural areas is located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

Other matters

19. The Appellant has referred to an approved housing scheme for 24 dwellings in Rydon, which is a village located a short distance from Holton St Mary. Whilst this village similarly has few community facilities, it is larger than Holton St Mary and has a recreational ground, a golf club and some places of employment within the vicinity of the village. In addition, whilst it is slightly further away from East Bergholt and the A12, Rydon is closer to Hadleigh, which is defined in Policy CS2 of the CS as one of the three towns/urban areas in the district. Hadleigh offers a wide range of community facilities and services. As such Rydon and Holton St Mary are not directly comparable and the decision to approve 24 dwellings at Rydon reflects the balancing required by Policies CS11 and CS15 of the CS.

20. A short distance to the southwest of the Appeal site is Holton Hall, which is a grade II listed building. It is set back from the road frontage and is screened from the road and the surrounding area by mature planting. Holton Hall comprises a large rural farmhouse that has been extended over the years and which visually relates to the open farmland to the north, west and south of the property. The Appeal site is peripheral in views into or out of the entrance to Holton Hall. In addition, there are already linear rows of dwellings on the opposite side of the road and to the northwest and southeast of Holton Hall.

21. I am satisfied that the proposed development would preserve the setting of the listed building and would not result in a notable change to the significance of Holton Hall as a heritage asset. It would therefore be consistent with the requirements of Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Section 16 of the Framework.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate4 Appeal Decision APP/D3505/W/18/3205344

Planning Balance and Conclusion

22. I have found that the proposed development would conflict with the Council’s settlement strategy and would not be sustainably located. For the reasons set out above I give the conflict with Policies CS1, CS2, CS3, CS11 and CS15 of the CS significant weight.

23. Whilst there is no identified local need, the provision of nine houses would make a modest contribution to the supply of homes within the District, which is a benefit of the scheme. However, whilst it is noted that some of the proposed dwellings would be for rent, from the information supplied they would be for private rental and it is not stated that they would meet any identified local need.

24. There is a small employment estate a short distance from the Appeal site, although its potential to provide employment for the occupiers of the proposed dwellings is unclear. The proposal would result in some employment during the construction stage and the occupiers of the proposed dwellings would contribute to the local economy. The is a considerations which would weigh in favour of the scheme.

25. Holton St Mary benefits from few services and facilities and although the level of infrastructure is better in some of the Hinterland Villages within the Capel St Mary cluster, it is nonetheless limited. Despite this, the hinterland villages do provide some support for each other, thereby reducing the need to travel further afield to larger towns.

26. The Appeal site falls within the 13km “zone of influence” for the Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site, and a Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted, which makes a suitable contribution to the emerging Suffolk Recreational Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy. The intention is to ensure that the development would have “no likely significant effect” on the SPA and Ramsar Site. As this seeks to provide mitigation it is not a benefit in favour of the scheme and I give it no weight in the planning balance. Similarly, the absence of objections from various consultees is a neutral factor and does not provide any positive weight to the planning balance.

27. On the other hand, the development would be in an unsustainable location and the environmental objective of sustainable development would not therefore be achieved. There would also be conflict with the Council’s settlement strategy and development plan as a whole. This weighs heavily against the Appeal.

28. I appreciate that there is some dispute over whether or not the District has a deliverable supply of sites to provide a minimum five years supply. However, the lack of a five-year supply of housing does not automatically lead to a grant of planning permission. Even if I were to conclude that there is a shortfall in the five-year housing land supply on the scale suggested by the Appellant, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission in this case would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of nine dwellings on the Appeal site when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Overall the presumption in favour should not be applied.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate5 Appeal Decision APP/D3505/W/18/3205344

29. The proposal would conflict with the development plan and this conflict is not outweighed by other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework and paragraph 11 in particular. Therefore, for the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the Appeal should be dismissed.

Elizabeth Lawrence

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate6