Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 December 2023 by A Price BSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 January 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/J0405/W/23/3321254 Land East of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Buckinghamshire MK18 2NA • 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 Ian Sutton of Sutton Properties Ltd against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref 22/04290/APP, dated 23 December 2022, was refused by notice dated 14 February 2023. • The development proposed is the demolition of existing agricultural structures and change of use to C3 (residential) to form two detached dwellings with landscaping, access, parking provisions and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Whilst I note the site address stated in the original application form, I have used the Council’s site address in the banner heading, above. This is for certainty. 3. I am aware of a previous appeal1 at the same site. I have been mindful of this in making my decision. 4.

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision Since the appeal was lodged, a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published (19 December 2023). This does not materially change the planning policy context in respect of the main issues. Main Issues 5. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposed development on protected species. Reasons Character and appearance 6. The appeal site forms a parcel of land located at the edge of East Claydon. It is occupied by two agricultural buildings, one of which is open sided. Established 1 APP/J0405/W/20/3246996 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision Since the appeal was lodged, a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published (19 December 2023). This does not materially change the planning policy context in respect of the main issues. Main Issues 5. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposed development on protected species. Reasons Character and appearance 6. The appeal site forms a parcel of land located at the edge of East Claydon. It is occupied by two agricultural buildings, one of which is open sided. Established 1 APP/J0405/W/20/3246996 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3321254 residential properties lie to the south of the site, with the modern residential development of Hinton Close positioned to the west. To the northwest, north and east lies open countryside. This, combined with the agricultural use of the site and the mature landscaping along its north-eastern boundary, contributes to an open, rural and verdant character in this part of East Claydon Road. 7. The proposed development would introduce two residential dwellings to the site. One of these dwellings would be orientated towards East Claydon Road while the other would be setback within a courtyard. The site would be accessed via an existing opening leading to a shared parking area. 8. Policy D4 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013-2033 (LP, 2021) sets out that new housing within smaller villages will be supported where it contributes to the sustainability of that village and where it meets a specific set of criteria. This includes a) that it is located within the existing developed footprint of the village or is substantially enclosed by existing built development.

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision ‘Existing developed footprint’ is defined by the policy as: ‘the continuous built form of the village, and excludes individual buildings and groups of dispersed buildings. This includes…agricultural buildings and associated land on the edge of the village…where the land relates more to the surrounding countryside than to the built-up area of the village.’ 9. As a parcel of land accommodating two agricultural buildings at the very edge of the village, I do not consider the site to clearly fall within the existing developed footprint of the village, as defined by LP Policy D4. Although the site could not be described as isolated, it is separated from established residential properties to the south by around 80 metres. The site and its existing buildings, being agricultural in use and appearance, clearly relate more to the surrounding countryside than to the built-up area of the village which is generally residential in character. Moreover, the site could not reasonably be described as substantially enclosed by existing built development. Open countryside exists to the northwest, north and east of the site with a gap between it and the residential properties to the south.

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision Whilst the development at Hinton Close lies on the opposite side of East Claydon Road, properties there are orientated away, and setback, from the road and do not substantially enclose the appeal site. 10. I note that the appellant has, since a previous scheme, made amendments to the proposed development, including a reduction in the overall number of units and a reduction in the height of Plot 1. I acknowledge the design rationale, with the buildings replicating a farmhouse and converted agricultural buildings, and that these would be constructed in materials suited to the surrounding area. I also accept that the overall footprint of the proposed development would be less than that of the existing barns and that further landscaping is proposed. 11. Nevertheless, the proposed development, taken as a whole, would undoubtedly appear more prominent within the streetscene compared with the existing low- key agricultural buildings. It would introduce a domestic character at this edge of village location where this is currently not the case, harmfully urbanising the open and rural character of this part of East Claydon Road and encroaching into the open countryside.

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision This would be emphasised by likely domestic paraphernalia including areas of hardstanding, parked cars, garden areas and other associated facilities. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision This would be emphasised by likely domestic paraphernalia including areas of hardstanding, parked cars, garden areas and other associated facilities. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3321254 12. My attention is drawn to the existence of Hinton Close and other nearby sites with planning permission for residential development. Although Hinton Close is positioned near to the appeal site and on land understood to have previously accommodated agricultural buildings, it was permitted within a different development plan context. Although I have only limited information before me in respect of the other schemes, those sites appear to be substantially enclosed by existing built development, as required by LP Policy D4. The same cannot be said of the appeal site. Consequently, the circumstances and planning context that applied to those schemes are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme. In any case, those developments and permissions have not altered the rural, agricultural character and appearance of the appeal site, or its direct relationship with the adjoining open countryside. 13.

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the relevant provisions of LP Policies S1, S2, S3, BE2, D4 and NE4 which in summary seek to ensure that development takes place in appropriate locations, respecting its context. This is in a similar vein to the objectives of the Framework and National Design Guide insofar as good design and the location of development is concerned. 14. The decision notice refers to the Council’s New Houses in Town and Village Design Guide. The Council’s appeal evidence sets out that a new Design Supplementary Planning Document was approved on 30thJune 2023 which supersedes the previous document. However, I have not been provided with a copy of that document and so have not referred to it in my decision. Protected Species 15. A preliminary ecological appraisal was submitted in support of the scheme. This identifies that the site lies within a red impact zone for Great Crested Newts (GCNs) which means that GCNs are very likely to be present in the area. Existing data records the presence of GCNs within 100 metres of the site.

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision The appraisal also sets out that nearby ponds and the unmanaged grassland at the site would provide good habitats for reptiles and amphibians. 16. The appraisal recommends that a certificate is obtained from the Great Crested Newt District Licence Scheme, which includes the implementation of measures during clearance and construction work to minimise the risk to GCNs. 17. In respect of the potential for the proposed development to impact GCNs, the Council sought either a District Licence to demonstrate that the impacts of the development could be addressed, or further information to describe the status of nearby ponds and to demonstrate how likely impacts could be mitigated or compensated for. Neither are before me. 18. The appellant does not disagree to the principle of entering into a District Licensing arrangement. However, they set out that the costs of doing so would be prohibitive and potentially abortive. Whilst I acknowledge this concern, and the appellant’s proposed condition to overcome the matter, the appraisal is clear and specifically identifies the need to enter into a Licence.

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision Moreover, without more definitive clarification of the mitigation measures required or proposed before the granting of permission, it is not possible to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the protected species or that it could meet the requirements of LP Policies in this respect. In any case, even were this main issue found to be acceptable, it https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision Moreover, without more definitive clarification of the mitigation measures required or proposed before the granting of permission, it is not possible to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the protected species or that it could meet the requirements of LP Policies in this respect. In any case, even were this main issue found to be acceptable, it https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3321254 would not overcome the harm identified in respect of character and appearance. 19. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would have an acceptable effect on protected species, in particular GCNs, contrary to the relevant provisions of LP Policy NE1. This policy, in summary, seeks to ensure that development proposals avoid negative impacts on biodiversity and protected species. This is in a similar vein to the objectives of the Framework insofar as the protection of biodiversity is concerned. Other Matters 20. The submitted evidence indicates that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. In the event that I accepted this position, the provisions of Framework paragraph 11(d) would be engaged. This states that in such a situation where development plan policies are deemed out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless one of two criteria apply. One of these, and which is pertinent to the appeal scheme before me, is if any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. 21.

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision The proposed development would provide social and economic benefits, including the provision of two additional homes in a location with an identified need, would provide employment during construction and additional trade to local services and facilities following occupation. However, by reason of the scale and nature of the proposed development, these benefits are likely to be limited. Accordingly, and given the significant harm I have identified above, the adverse effects of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. 22. I accept that the proposed development would make efficient use of a small site, which is supported by the Framework, and that East Claydon is regarded as a Smaller Village in the Local Plan, with housing requirements likely to be met, in part, by windfall sites. Nevertheless, this is not at any cost, and it does not lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues. 23. I note the appellant’s comments around the sustainability of the location of the proposed development relative to services and facilities.

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision Although in my view, future occupiers of the proposed development would likely be reliant on private car to access day-to-day services, this did not form a reason for refusal. In any case, even were I to find that the proposed development formed an acceptable location for housing in terms of accessibility, this would not overcome or outweigh the harm identified. 24. I note the appellant’s comments in respect of the heritage officer. However, the local planning authority is not bound to take the advice of its specialist officers. I have considered the proposed scheme based on the evidence before me and my observations on site. 25. I acknowledge that the proposed scheme would meet some other planning policy objectives, including living conditions and flooding. I also acknowledge that no objection was received in respect of highway safety or arboricultural works. Nevertheless, these matters are neutral in my determination of the appeal and have not led me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3321254 26. The appeal site is located within the wider surroundings of two Grade II listed buildings, White House Farmhouse and 3 Church Way. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving their settings. 27. The wider rural and verdant surroundings of the listed buildings, which includes the appeal site, positively contribute to their significance. Nevertheless, given the location, intervening built form and landscaping and the extent of the proposed development under this appeal, and mindful of the previous Inspector’s decision for an alternative scheme, I consider that it would preserve the settings of these listed buildings and the contribution they make to their significance. I note the Council had no concerns in this regard either. Conclusion 28. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Land east of East Claydon Road, Opposite Hinton Close, East Claydon, Bucks, MK18 2NA — Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * — A Price INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5