Rectory Farm, Chellaston Lane, Aston-on-Trent, Derbyshire, DE72 2AX

Rectory Farm, Chellaston Lane, Aston-on-Trent, Derbyshire, DE72 2AX — South Derbyshire District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 August 2025 by L Fern BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 September 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/F1040/W/25/3359981 Rectory Farm, Chellaston Lane, Aston-on-Trent, Derbyshire DE72 2AX • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Armett against the decision of South Derbyshire District Council. • The application Ref is DMPA/2024/0943. • The development proposed is the subdivision of an existing dwelling to two dwellings, conversion of four existing agricultural buildings to three dwellings, demolition of 2no. existing agricultural buildings and the erection of 5 new dwellings together with access improvements, car parking and landscaping. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Armett against South Derbyshire District Council, which is the subject of a separate decision. Background and Main Issues 3. The appellant has included elements of an extant consent1 to seek a comprehensive approval for the whole site.

Rectory Farm, Chellaston Lane, Aston-on-Trent, Derbyshire, DE72 2AX — South Derbyshire District Council — Appeal Decision Accordingly, the Council raises no concerns regarding the subdivision of the existing dwelling to two dwellings and the conversion of four existing agricultural buildings to three dwellings. I am content that these elements are clearly distinguishable on the submitted plans, and I see no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusion in this respect. It therefore follows that the elements in contention are the demolition of two agricultural buildings and the erection of five new dwellings in their place, and I have determined the appeal on this basis. 4. Whilst ecology was not a reason for refusal, I have a statutory duty to consider the effects of the proposed development on protected species, such as Great Crested Newts (GCNs). Ecology is therefore included as a main issue in my decision. The appellant has been informed of this. 5. It therefore follows that the main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on ecology, with particular regard to the habitat of the Great Crested Newt; 1 Council Ref DMPA/2023/0860 for the subdivision of existing dwelling to 2 and conversion of 4 brick-built barns to provide 3 dwellings, approved on 4 January 2024. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Rectory Farm, Chellaston Lane, Aston-on-Trent, Derbyshire, DE72 2AX — South Derbyshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F1040/W/25/3359981 • Whether or not the appeal site is an appropriate location for the proposed development and if harm is found, whether this is outweighed by other material considerations. Reasons Ecology 6. Despite ecology not being a reason for refusal on the Council’s decision notice, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) impose a duty on me to consider whether European Protected Species, such as GCNs, would be affected by the proposed development. 7. The appellant’s Preliminary Ecological Appraisal recommends further survey work prior to determination to ascertain whether nearby ponds support GCN populations. The reasons provided are due to the proximity of the ponds to the proposed development and that there is potential for the loss of terrestrial habitat. This stance is supported by Derbyshire Wildlife Trust in their consultation response. 8. It is not appropriate for such surveys to be conditioned to allow them to be submitted and approved later.

Rectory Farm, Chellaston Lane, Aston-on-Trent, Derbyshire, DE72 2AX — South Derbyshire District Council — Appeal Decision In the absence of completed surveys there is insufficient information before me to carry out my regulatory duty to consider whether protected species would be harmed by the proposed development and if so, whether mitigation measures would be required and effective. 9. For the above reasons, the proposed development would fail to accord with Paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which, amongst other things, seeks to minimise impacts on biodiversity. Location 10. Policy BNE5 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan (LP) restricts development outside of the settlement boundaries, which are set out in Policy SDT1 of the LP, to specific forms to preserve and protect the countryside. 11. It is common ground between the parties that the appeal site sits outside of the settlement boundary of Aston on Trent and that the proposed development does not fall within any of the acceptable forms of development set out in Policy BNE5. 12. The appeal site comprises a farmstead that is located a considerable distance from the nearest settlement of Aston on Trent, separated from it by numerous fields.

Rectory Farm, Chellaston Lane, Aston-on-Trent, Derbyshire, DE72 2AX — South Derbyshire District Council — Appeal Decision Chellaston Lane, which the farmstead is located off, is rural in nature with grass verges either side and no footpath for its duration between the appeal site and the settlement. For these reasons, I find that the site is situated in an isolated countryside location. 13. However, the appellant has presented a fallback position relating to the implementation of the change of use of the two agricultural buildings to five dwellings granted prior approval2 under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO). The prior approvals remain extant, and the 2 Council Ref DMPN/2023/0723, granted on 23 July 2023 and Council Ref DMPN/2024/0293, granted on 16 April 2024. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Rectory Farm, Chellaston Lane, Aston-on-Trent, Derbyshire, DE72 2AX — South Derbyshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F1040/W/25/3359981 Council does not contend that the fallback position of implementing the approvals exists. 14. If I was to allow this appeal, there would be no obligation for the appellant to convert the agricultural buildings in-line with the prior approvals before commencing the approved development under this appeal. Having regard to the Mansell case3, I find that the fallback position has a realistic prospect of being implemented. 15. The proposal under this appeal seeks the same number of dwellings as proposed under the Class Q prior approval consents, a reduction in overall building footprint, and buildings that would be positioned in a similar location to the existing agricultural buildings. It is therefore similar in kind and scale. 16. Although the conversion of the two existing agricultural buildings would maintain a connection with the evolution of the farmstead over time, they are of modern utilitarian design and are not of any particular architectural or historic interest.

Rectory Farm, Chellaston Lane, Aston-on-Trent, Derbyshire, DE72 2AX — South Derbyshire District Council — Appeal Decision Their replacement with buildings that respect the traditional form, design and materials of other retained agricultural buildings on the site that are proposed to be converted, would be an improvement overall architecturally and would therefore not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area. 17. Accordingly, I attribute significant weight to this as a fallback position. 18. The appellant has also confirmed that a further Class Q proposal4 has been submitted to the Council, seeking an increase in the number of dwellings proposed. Whilst in theory this has the potential to represent a more harmful fallback position, I have not been provided with specific details, and I cannot therefore make a comparison with the proposal under this appeal. I therefore attribute limited weight to this fallback position. 19. The appellant asserts that improved energy efficiency would be gained from new builds compared to the conversions of the existing agricultural buildings. However, there is no substantiated evidence before me to convince me that this would be the case. 20. Furthermore, the appellant also credits the revised proposal with improved separation distances between dwellings.

Rectory Farm, Chellaston Lane, Aston-on-Trent, Derbyshire, DE72 2AX — South Derbyshire District Council — Appeal Decision However, I note that separation distances were not identified as a concern with regards to the Class Q conversions of the buildings and therefore this consideration is neutral. 21. Overall, the material considerations advanced by the appellant, including the fallback position, carry significant weight and outweigh the harm identified in relation to the locational aspects of the proposal. I conclude that these matters are sufficient to outweigh the conflict with Policies BNE5, SDT1 and H1 of the LP, and Paragraph 84 of the Framework, which stipulates that planning decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside. Other Matters 22. Interested parties have raised concerns that the proposed development would negatively affect the existing poor water supply, highway safety with regards to 3 Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC & others [2017] EWCA Civ 1314. 4 Council Ref DMPN/2025/0375. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Rectory Farm, Chellaston Lane, Aston-on-Trent, Derbyshire, DE72 2AX — South Derbyshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/F1040/W/25/3359981 both construction and occupant traffic, surface water runoff and flood risk, light pollution, contamination and underground gas supply. Whilst these are legitimate concerns, the proposal before me does not seek an increase in the amount, or change in the type, of development from that already granted prior approval. The consents remain extant and could be implemented regardless of my appeal decision. 23. I have also been directed to consider proposals for overhead pylons as part of National Grid improvements. No details have been provided, but in any case, the implementation of any associated easements would be a matter outside of my appeal deliberations. Conclusion 24. Whilst I conclude that material considerations outweigh the conflict with policy on the site’s location, the appeal scheme does not address the importance of protecting the habitats of protected species as required by Paragraph 193 of the Framework. 25. For this reason, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Rectory Farm, Chellaston Lane, Aston-on-Trent, Derbyshire, DE72 2AX — South Derbyshire District Council — L Fern INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4