Case 3275943

Maiden Mead, Banklands, North Newton, Bridgwater, Somerset, TA7 0DQ

Sedgemoor District Council * — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
29 November 2021
Authority
Sedgemoor District Council *
Inspector
Major P
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Outline
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Ms Cathy Durbin
Agent
APW Planning
LPA reference
37/20/00067
ONS LPA code
E07000188
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
6 July 2021

Summary AI

The appeal for a single dwelling in a rural area was dismissed due to conflict with the development plan's spatial policies. The inspector found that the site was not suitable for infill housing, as it lacked a clearly defined nucleus, and that the proposal fell outside the scope of relevant policies.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

Maiden Mead, Banklands, North Newton, Bridgwater, Somerset, TA7 0DQ — Sedgemoor District Council * — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 November 2021 by Philip Major BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:29 November 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/V3310/W/21/3275943 Maiden Mead, North Newton, Bridgwater TA7 0DQ • 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 Ms C Durbin against the decision of Sedgemoor District Council. • The application Ref: 37/20/00067, dated 12 August 2020, was refused by notice dated 7 December 2020. • The development proposed is the erection of a single dwelling. Preliminary Matters 1. The Council refused planning permission for 2 reasons. The second reason relates to being able to demonstrate that the proposal would not add to nutrient loads (phosphorus) within the catchment of the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site. Since the refusal the Appellant has produced a short report indicating that there would be no likelihood of any significant effects on the Ramsar site and that an appropriate assessment is not required. I am not aware of the Council’s response in that regard.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

Maiden Mead, Banklands, North Newton, Bridgwater, Somerset, TA7 0DQ — Sedgemoor District Council * — Appeal Decision In any event, as I have determined that the appeal should be dismissed for other reasons, there is no need for me to consider that matter further. Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 3. The main issue in the appeal is whether the proposed development would be located in an acceptable location in relation to local spatial strategy. Reasons 4. The appeal site is located in a deeply rural area. Development in the locality is scattered and sporadic, linked by predominantly narrow lanes. The Bridgwater and Taunton canal bisects the area and is located close to the eastern boundary of the appeal site. The appeal site is visible from the roadside both through the vehicular access and through gaps in the roadside hedge, and it is also visible at present from the canalside towpath. 5. Policies of the development plan are of recent origin, being adopted in 2019. The overall spatial strategy is to concentrate most housing growth in larger settlements, with less development in smaller settlements and the countryside. This is consistent with the advice of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Of particular note is Policy CO2 which deals with infill housing in the https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

Maiden Mead, Banklands, North Newton, Bridgwater, Somerset, TA7 0DQ — Sedgemoor District Council * — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V3310/W/21/3275943 countryside. Any such infill housing should be associated with a small village or hamlet which has a clearly defined nucleus. In this case I cannot agree that there is any relationship between the appeal site and a village or hamlet even though there are dwellings scattered around the general locality. The Appellant accepts that the site is, in policy terms, in the open countryside. The nearest defined hamlet of which I am aware is Hedging, some distance to the west, whilst the nearest village of North Newton is even further away to the north. Although a hamlet of Banklands is referred to this is not a specified location unless it refers to the converted barns at Newcotts Farm to the east. In any event there is simply no nucleus of development around the appeal site which would satisfy the locational requirements of Policy CO2 and so the site cannot be regarded as an infill plot. The concept advanced by the Appellant, that the site is part of the ‘wider hamlets’ of Hedging and Banklands, has no support from the development plan. There is clear conflict with Policy CO2. 6.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

Maiden Mead, Banklands, North Newton, Bridgwater, Somerset, TA7 0DQ — Sedgemoor District Council * — Appeal Decision There is support in the development plan for self-build homes (Policy D9) but I note that this depends, amongst other things, on self-build homes in the countryside being in compliance with Policy CO2. As this proposal falls outside of the scope of Policy CO2 it cannot gain support from Policy D9. I note here that there is nothing before me which adequately counters the Council’s position that it has facilitated the provision of a satisfactory number of self- build plots. 7. I have noted the support of several people who consider that the proposal would assist in tidying up the locality, and that it would enable a dwelling to be constructed for those with local connections. That may well be so, but there is clear conflict with the spatial policies of the development plan in this case, notwithstanding the local connections of the Appellant and the current use of the site. 8. In a broader sense the objectives of Policy CO1 seek to ensure that development in the countryside follows sustainable principles. This, in part, reflects the fact that countryside areas have limited services and fewer opportunities for sustainable transport.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

Maiden Mead, Banklands, North Newton, Bridgwater, Somerset, TA7 0DQ — Sedgemoor District Council * — Appeal Decision I have been given no information which supports the development of this site as an exception to the more focussed objectives of those other policies noted above. The Council has not identified any residual requirement for housing provision in the countryside over the Local Plan period. Hence, I also find conflict with Policy CO1. 9. I do not accept that the Council has interpreted its policies in a narrow and inflexible manner as suggested. Nor am I satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the site should be accepted as previously developed land given what I have read about its current use. Even were the land to be accepted as previously developed it would not overcome the locational difficulties and development plan conflict I have set out. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 Philip Major

Maiden Mead, Banklands, North Newton, Bridgwater, Somerset, TA7 0DQ — Sedgemoor District Council * — Philip Major INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Green belt
Against appellant
¶5

The inspector found that the site was not located in an infill plot, as required by Policy CO2, and that there was no nucleus of development around the appeal site to satisfy the locational requirements of this policy.

Green belt
Against appellant
¶6

The inspector noted that the proposal fell outside the scope of Policy CO2 and therefore could not gain support from Policy D9, which supported self-build homes in compliance with Policy CO2.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶8

The inspector found that the proposal conflicted with the objectives of Policy CO1, which sought to ensure that development in the countryside followed sustainable principles.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶9

The inspector did not accept the Appellant's suggestion that the Council had interpreted its policies in a narrow and inflexible manner.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
Policy CO2
Determinative
Policy D9
Substantial
Policy CO1
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 29 November 2021 under the Open Government Licence.