1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD

1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD — Charnwood Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 October 2022 by Jonathan Edwards BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 October 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/X2410/W/22/3300053 Mucklegate House, 1 Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave LE12 7LD • 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 planning permission • The appeal is made by Mr Ian Anderson (Williams Homes) against Charnwood Borough Council. • The application Ref P/21/2634/2, is dated 20 December 2021. • The development proposed is erection of a dwelling, garage, access and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for the erection of a dwelling, garage, access and associated works is refused. Main Issues 2. The Council has made no decision on the application for planning permission leading to this appeal.

1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD — Charnwood Borough Council — Appeal Decision In light of the Council’s appeal submissions, the main issues are (i) the effect of the development on biodiversity, (ii) whether it would be in a suitable location having regard to development plan policies, and (iii) its effect on the character and appearance of the area, particularly whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Seagrave Conservation Area (the CA). Reasons Biodiversity 3. On my visit I saw the appeal site is vacant of buildings and largely overgrown. Trees and hedges lie on the 2 side boundaries with the adjoining properties, although the trees shown along the roadside on the tree survey plan have already been removed. Despite the adjoining buildings, the site lies close to significant wooded areas, particularly on the opposite side of the road. 4. Policy CS13 of the Charnwood Core Strategy 2015 (CS) seeks to conserve and enhance the natural environment for its own value. It expects proposals to consider and take account of the impacts on biodiversity. Also, it sets out a requirement that development proposals should be accompanied by ecological surveys and an assessment of the impacts on biodiversity. 5.

1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD — Charnwood Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appellant states that the proposal would not be harmful to any protected species. However, there is no evidence before me that indicates any survey of the site has been carried out to ascertain whether it is being used by protected species or has any biodiversity value. The appellant’s tree survey report https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD — Charnwood Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appellant states that the proposal would not be harmful to any protected species. However, there is no evidence before me that indicates any survey of the site has been carried out to ascertain whether it is being used by protected species or has any biodiversity value. The appellant’s tree survey report https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD — Charnwood Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/22/3300053 highlights that trees are hosts to nesting birds, many of which are protected by law. It goes on to suggest that investigations should be carried out by professionally trained operatives for signs of bats and nesting birds. However, as far as I am aware, such investigations have not been carried out. 6. The appellant suggests that the matter could be addressed through the imposition of a planning condition that requires approval of a scheme to compensate for any loss of biodiversity. Also, it is suggested that such a scheme could achieve a gain in the biodiversity value of the site through a range of measures such as the provision of bat and bird boxes. However, without a clear understanding on the site as it stands, I am unconvinced that the proposed development would avoid harm to protected species or lead to any enhancement in its biodiversity value. 7. Also, I note the government advice provided in ODPM Circular 06/2005, which at paragraph 99 states that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species is established before planning permission is granted.

1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD — Charnwood Borough Council — Appeal Decision In light of this advice and the natural features on the site and nearby, I consider it would be unreasonable to address this matter through the imposition of a planning condition as suggested by the appellant. 8. The Council did not request any biodiversity survey information at the time the planning application was submitted or before the appeal was lodged. Nevertheless, for the above reasons, I conclude that insufficient information has been provided to show the development would avoid detriment to the biodiversity value of the site. In these regards, it would not accord with CS policy CS13 and the aim to conserve and enhance the natural environment. Suitability of location 9. CS policy CS1 sets out a development strategy for the delivery of new homes. This looks to direct housing development to Leicester principal urban area, Loughborough and Shepshed, identified service centres and other settlements. Also, policy CS1 allows development in small villages and hamlets, but only when it would meet a specific and identified local need. 10. Seagrave is one of the small villages identified under CS policy CS1. However, the appellant acknowledges the proposal would not meet any local social or economic need.

1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD — Charnwood Borough Council — Appeal Decision Therefore, while it would be within the defined settlement boundaries, I conclude the proposal would not be in a location identified as being suitable for housing under the terms of CS policy CS1. Character and appearance 11. The CA includes most of the built up area of Seagrave and parts of the open countryside that surrounds the village. There is a variety of buildings of different styles and ages throughout the CA. The appeal site lies on the junction of Green Lane and Muckle Gate Lane, near to a village green that includes a group of mature trees. This part of the CA gains its significance from the age and architectural interest of some of the houses. Also, there is an attractive rural village feel in the locality of the site, created by the lack of pavements and street lights plus the presence of grass verges and open spaces next to the road. 12. The site is vacant of buildings but it is unkempt. The removal of the trees on the site frontage allows views of the retained trees on the side boundaries. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD — Charnwood Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/22/3300053 However, these are set back from the road and so their effect on the street scene is limited. Overall, the site’s appearance makes no meaningful positive contribution to the visual qualities of the CA. 13. The Council suggests that further information on proposed site levels should have been provided with the application. However, the plans indicate the level of the proposal compared to 1 Muckle Gate Lane (No 1) and I am satisfied sufficient information is provided to understand the scheme’s visual effects. 14. The proposed dwelling would be clearly seen from the highway directly in front as well as when approaching from the north east along Green Lane. However, it would be set back and so it would be screened in long distance views from the north west by No 1 and from the south by 42a Green Lane. Therefore, the development would not be unduly prominent in the street scene, particularly as it would be behind a vegetated strip of land to the front. 15. The proposed development would lead to an obvious loss of openness to the site.

1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD — Charnwood Borough Council — Appeal Decision However, the scheme would be between existing properties and it would have no effect on the village green or most of the verges along Green Lane and Muckle Gate Lane. As such, this part of the CA would still retain a significant sense of openness even if the proposed development was constructed. 16. Moreover, the dwelling would include separate elements of different heights so as to break up its mass. As a result, it would not dominate the street scene or appear cramped, even though the building would be almost as wide as the plot. The house would include sympathetic architectural features such as pitched roofs, a chimney and an open sided porch. Given these features and the mix of dwellings in the vicinity, the dwelling would be of an appropriate design. 17. For these reasons, I conclude the development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Also, it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA and it would cause no harm to its significance. In these regards, the proposal would accord with CS policies CS2 and CS14. Amongst other things, these look to conserve or enhance historic assets and to ensure development respects its surroundings. Other Matters and Planning Balance 18.

1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD — Charnwood Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposal would be contrary to development plan policies that relate to biodiversity and the location of housing. Therefore, it follows to consider whether sufficient justification exists to grant planning permission contrary to the development plan. 19. The Council accepts it is unable to demonstrate a 5 years’ supply of housing land as required under the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Instead, it states that only 3.04 years’ supply can be demonstrated. This is a significant shortfall. 20. In such circumstances, paragraph 11 of the Framework indicates that relevant development plan policies should be deemed as out of date. Paragraph 11 goes on to require consideration of the benefits and the adverse impacts of the development against the policies of the Framework as a whole. 21. I have already found the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Also, it would not lead to an incursion into the countryside. The Council accepts the scheme would cause no unacceptable https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD — Charnwood Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/X2410/W/22/3300053 harm to the living conditions at any nearby residence and I find no reason to disagree. The development would include satisfactory parking facilities and a safe vehicular access. Acceptability in all of these regards is a neutral factor rather than a benefit to which I attach positive weight. 22. The Framework looks for new housing in rural areas to be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Unlike CS policy CS1, there is no additional requirement under the terms of the Framework for rural housing to meet an identified social need. The proposed house would be within easy walking distance of local facilities including a village hall, playing fields, primary school, church and pub. It is highly likely that future residents would support these services and so the location of the proposal would accord with the terms of the Framework on rural housing. 23. Furthermore, the proposed development would add to the housing stock. However, this benefit attracts only modest weight as only a single dwelling is proposed. 24. Therefore, the overall benefits of the scheme are limited.

1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD — Charnwood Borough Council — Appeal Decision Nonetheless, I find they are of sufficient weight to overcome the conflict with CS policy CS1 regarding the location of housing development. 25. However, the Framework recommends that planning permission be refused for development that does not avoid significant harm to biodiversity or that provides adequate mitigation. I am unable to conclude the development would accord with the provisions of the Framework in these regards as there is insufficient information on the existing biodiversity value of the site. This factor attracts significant weight in my assessment. 26. Therefore, when having regard to all material factors in light of the Framework’s policies, I find that the adverse effects of the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits of the scheme. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development laid out in paragraph 11 of the Framework does not apply. Conclusion 27. The proposal would not accord with the development plan policies when read as a whole. In light of CS policy CS13, there is insufficient justification to grant planning permission contrary to the development plan. As such, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.

1 Mucklegate House, Muckle Gate Lane, Seagrave, LE12 7LD — Charnwood Borough Council — Jonathan Edwards INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4