- The application site lies on the edge of the Rearsby Conservation Area, the significance of which is largely characterised by important clusters of trees that define the village boundary in this location as well as views from Melton Road towards Rearsby House, a non-designated Heritage Asset. The proposed development, due to its overall scale and location would destroy this important approach to the setting of Rearsby Conservation Area, giving rise to less than substantial harm to the character and setting of Rearsby conservation area which would not be overridden by the public benefits that the proposal would bring. This is contrary to policy CS14 which seeks to conserve and enhance heritage assets and the advice in paragraph 134 of the Framework

Whilst it is acknowledged that the Council is not currently able to demonstrate the availability of a five year supply of housing land and that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, the cumulative adverse impacts of the development are considered to outweigh the benefits of the additional housing. The areas of significant harm are as follows: - The location of the proposed development on the edge of a rural village does not offer a sustainable location for new housing growth when the Borough is considered as a whole. As a result the development does not comply with the aims and objectives of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF and as supported in policy CS1. - The proposal would be harmful, by way of its scale, nature and location to the rural landscape of this part of the Wreake Valley as identified within the most recent Local landscape character assessment. Additionally it would erode the separate identities of Rearsby and East Goscote, by reducing the area of local separation between the two villages and would give rise to localised visual harm. As a result it would be contrary to bullets 1 and 3 of policy CS11 of the Core Strategy and the advice relating to the protection of landscape and countryside within the National Planning Policy Framework, (in particular paragraphs 17 and 109). - The proposal does not make effective use of brownfield land and would result in the loss of good quality agricultural land which is classified as Grade 2 and is the best and most versatile agricultural land. In accordance with paragraph 112 of the NPPF development should be directed towards land of poorer quality and therefore should avoid sites of higher quality such as the proposed site. Accordingly the proposal would be contrary to policy CS16 of the Core strategy and the advice in paragraph 112 of the Framework.