Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 January 2019

by E. Brownless, BA (Hons) Solicitor

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1st April 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/T2405/W/18/3214197 Land north of The Haven, 1 Stanton Lane, Potters Marston, LE9 3JR • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr M Holyoake against the decision of District Council. • The application Ref: 18/0628/FUL dated 20 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 29 June 2018. • The development proposed is described as ‘erection of residential dwelling on land north of The Haven, 1 Stanton Lane, Potters Marston, , LE9 3JR’.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matters

2. The Blaby Local Plan Delivery Development Plan Document (DPD) was adopted by the Council on the 4 February 2019 and replaces, in its entirety, the Local Plan 1999. I have allowed the parties the opportunity to provide their comments on this matter and accordingly, I have determined this appeal with regards to the DPD and the Blaby District Local Plan (Core Strategy) Development Plan Document February 2013 (LP).

3. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) was published on the 19 February 2019 and I have had regard to this in reaching my decision.

Main Issues

4. The main issues are i) whether the appeal site is a suitable location for a dwelling with particular regard to the settlement strategy and accessibility to services; and ii) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Reasons

Settlement Strategy

5. LP Policy CS1 seeks to focus development within the most sustainable locations in the district, primarily within the principal urban area of Leicester (PUA) or larger, medium and smaller central village settlements. The settlement hierarchy of LP Policy CS5 defines Potters Marston as a hamlet and states “notwithstanding completions and commitment since the start of the plan period in 2006, no further housing growth is envisaged in hamlets and very small villages”.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/T2405/W/18/3214197

6. DPD Policy DM2 generally prohibits development within the countryside save for instances that satisfy the ‘General criteria’ and for categories of development that are considered to be exceptional, however, it has not been put to me that the proposal meets any of these exceptions.

Accessibility to services

7. Paragraph 79 of the Framework makes it clear that new isolated homes within the countryside should be avoided, unless one or more exceptions are met. Whilst the appeal site is mainly surrounded by open countryside it sits within the existing garden to No.1 and beyond No.1 are further neighbouring dwellings. Consequently, I find that the appeal site would not be ‘isolated’ for the purposes of paragraph 79, since it cannot be said that it would be far away from other places, buildings or people, albeit the location is rural.

8. However, in accordance with the decision of Braintree1, it does not necessarily follow that a site that is not ‘isolated’ will be reasonably accessible to services when considered in the context of other requirements of the Framework. In this case, the Council have advised there is a very poor range of services and facilities within the locality of Potters Marston. The appellant has not disputed this. The appeal site is located approximately 1400 metres from Croft, taking the Council’s measurement which has not been disputed by the appellant, a ‘medium central village’ as defined by LP Policy CS5, and access to it on foot would be via Stanton Lane where there is no footway and very little street lighting. Even if the distance of a 2.8km round trip was considered reasonably walkable, the nature of the lane would discourage pedestrians, especially in inclement weather or when it was dark.

9. Furthermore, I am advised by the Council that Potters Marston has ‘an infrequent or non-existent public transport service’. The appellant has not disputed this matter. While I am mindful of the advice in paragraph 103 of the Framework that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will not be the same in rural areas as in urban locations, I consider that this would further discourage use of public transport services.

10. The appellant advises that, in addition to Croft, some services are available at the key service centre and nearby villages of Littlethorpe, , , , Enderby and Narborough which range between 2kms to 6.5kms away. Whilst these villages are reasonably accessible by means of a relatively short cycle or car journey, given the lack of footways and lighting this would discourage journeys on foot or by cycle to access local services. I therefore consider that it is likely that the majority of journeys would be made by private car.

11. In light of the above, I conclude that the appeal site would not be a suitable location for a dwelling with particular regard to the settlement strategy and accessibility to services. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to LP Policies CS1 and CS5, the relevant requirements are set out above, together with LP Policy CS24 insofar as it requires development to be sustainable. It would also be contrary to DPD Policy DM2, in so far as the development does not meet any of the exceptions set out within the policy.

1 Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others [2018] EWCA Civ 610 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/T2405/W/18/3214197

12. Within the Council’s comments concerning the adoption of the DPD, the Council has expressed that the development fails to comply with DPD Policy DM8, however, no explanation has been provided by the Council as to their specific concerns with this policy. DPD Policy DM8 concerns the provision of an appropriate level of parking provision, however there is no substantive evidence before me that the development would fail to achieve this. Consequently, I attach no weight to any conflict with DPD Policy DM8 and I find this matter is not determinative. However, this does not affect my findings above in relation to settlement strategy and the accessibility of services.

Character and appearance

13. No 1 Stanton Lane and its neighbouring semi-detached dwellings form a small group within the open countryside in a linear ribbon pattern of development along the edge of the highway. Dwellings are positioned towards the front of their plots with relatively modest sized front gardens and driveways together with long and spacious gardens to the rear which give them an attractive rural character.

14. No.1 sits within a considerably larger plot than its neighbours. Whilst the proposal would subdivide the existing garden area of No.1, this dwelling would retain the largest size plot and the overall length of its garden would be unaffected. However, whilst the proposal would utilise the existing footprint of an outbuilding, its position next to the rear boundary would be significantly at odds with the existing linear pattern of development.

15. Furthermore, whilst I note that the appellant has sought to overcome the concerns of a previous application2 the proposal would introduce a sizeable detached dwelling with front facing gable which would not complement the existing built form of dwellings along this part of Stanton Lane. Thus, the proposal would appear incongruous and out of keeping with the prevailing character of semi-detached dwellings.

16. Given that the proposal would be sited on the crest of the slope as the land falls away towards the highway, it would occupy an elevated position so that it would be readily visible in views from neighbouring properties and their gardens, the highway, and the surrounding footpath network, from where it would be read as a discordant feature.

17. Additionally, an absence of land to the rear of the dwelling would likely give rise to the accumulation of outdoor furniture and domestic accoutrements such as washing lines to the front of the proposal. Taken together with likely means of enclosure and boundary treatments, this would lead to additional visual clutter and thus the physical manifestations of the proposal would erode the open, spacious and rural character of the area.

18. I have taken into account the appellant’s suggested use of materials sympathetic to a rural location, however, this does not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

19. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with LP Policies CS2 and CS18 and DPD Policy DM2(a). Among other things these

2 Planning application reference 17/0121/FUL https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/T2405/W/18/3214197

policies require development to respect local distinctive character and not adversely affect the character or appearance of the landscape.

Other Matters

20. Whilst the Framework promotes housing development in rural areas where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, there is insufficient evidence to show that the proposal achieves this by the provision of a single- family dwelling, the associated benefits of which would be modest in scale. Furthermore, the appellant’s intention to self-build the proposal and the improvements made to the appearance of the appeal site do not outweigh the harm I have identified above. There is nothing to suggest this is a ‘rural exception’ site as required by paragraph 77 of the Framework. Consequently, I attach very little weight to the proposal enhancing or maintaining the vitality of Potters Marston or the nearby villages of Littlethorpe, Huncote, Sapcote, Stoney Stanton, Enderby and Narborough.

21. There is some dispute regarding whether the proposal to re-use the existing foundations and adapt the part built outbuilding structure amounts to the re- use of redundant or disused buildings as is defined in paragraph 79 (c) of the Framework. Nonetheless, even if the proposal was determined to be a redundant or disused building, my findings in relation to the settlement strategy, accessibility to services and effect on the character and appearance of the area would be unaffected and the outcome of the appeal would remain the same.

22. I have had regard to the appellant’s desire to create a family home for a family member. However, personal circumstances can seldom outweigh general planning considerations as the building will remain long after these circumstances have ceased to apply. As such this matter does not outweigh the harm I have identified above.

23. The appellant has drawn my attention to a Scottish case-law, however, I have not been provided with evidence relating to the particular circumstances and whether the circumstances are comparable to the appeal proposal. Consequently, I have considered the appeal before me on its individual planning merits.

Conclusion

24. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.

E Brownless

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4