Appeal 6000493

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 2 detached dwellings together with improvements to and widening of site access and a separate area for biodiversity enhancement with a balancing pool and improvements to site drainage at Land off [site address] , Alfrick [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00977/PIP.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

An applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, the description of development explicitly refers to 2 dwellings; therefore, permission is sought for a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 2 dwellings. I have treated the block plan, site plan and plans and elevations submitted with the application2 as indicative only, given that the application only relates to the principle of the proposed development. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-012-20180615 2 [name]: 2295-13F; 2295-14F; 2295-15E

The main issue in this appeal is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development.

There is no dispute between the parties that the appeal site is located outside the development boundary and, for the purposes of Policy SWDP 2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) (Local Plan), within the open countryside.

Policy SWDP 2 of the Local Plan sets out the development strategy and settlement hierarchy for the District. It states that in the open countryside, development will be strictly controlled and limited to specific types. The proposal would not represent any of the types of development specified and would therefore be at odds with the development strategy in this regard.

Accordingly, the appeal site would not be in a suitable location for the type of development proposed when applying the development strategy set out in the

The appeal site is located within the [name] landscape character type of the Worcestershire Landscape Character Assessment (2013). This landscape type is characterised by a mosaic of agricultural land cleared directly from woodland, on a piecemeal basis, together with land enclosed from former localised areas of open fields, resulting in a dispersed pattern of farmsteads and wayside cottages and lack of strong settlement nuclei.

The appeal site forms part of a larger grass field, formerly used as a paddock, on the edge of the village of Alfrick. The wider field is characteristic of the local landscape, comprising an open parcel with largely hedgerow boundaries adjacent to a small area of woodland. However, the village contains clusters of houses focused around the war memorial where the main roads converge and is therefore not representative of a dispersed settlement pattern.

With the exception of the adjacent bungalow, Willowcroft, the appeal site is positioned away from most of the properties in Alfrick. It is accessed along a rural track, which also provides access to the sewage works from [site address] . No other houses are accessed from this track. From my observations on site, the built form of the sewage works, which is nestled within the adjacent woodland, is not readily apparent. As such, in views from Public Right of Way (PROW) 536(B), when approaching from [address], the appeal site appears to relate more to the wider countryside surrounding the village than the village itself.

Notwithstanding this, the wider field containing the appeal site is relatively well enclosed by the adjacent woodland, which limits views towards the wider countryside, as well as by the adjacent properties in Alfrick and the hedgerow on the opposite side of the rural track. In this context, and given the modest scale of the proposal, the limited encroachment into the countryside would be naturally contained. Although accessed from a rural track rather than a more established highway, the proposal would be comparable to other extensions of the village, such as at [name]. It would therefore reflect the settlement pattern and would not appear incongruous.

While the proposal would increase the amount of built form around the larger field, given the field is located on the edge of the village and much of it would still be bordered by woodland, it would not give rise to a separate settlement nucleus.

The proposal would result in some obstruction of the current views across the wider countryside from PROW 536(B). However, given the fall of the land, with an appropriately sensitive design and landscaping scheme at the technical details stage, I am of the view that it could be assimilated into its surroundings in a manner that would maintain the landscape character and adequate countryside views, comparable to the neighbouring bungalow, Willowcroft.

In conclusion, I find that the appeal site could accommodate 2 dwellings without harming the character and appearance of the area and local landscape setting in accordance with the guidance set out in [name] Planning Document Overarching Design Principles (2018). The proposal would therefore comply with [name] 21 and SWDP 25 of the Local Plan, which seek to ensure that all development integrates effectively with its surroundings and the character of the landscape setting.

In terms of benefits, the proposal would provide 2 new dwellings. The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. It has been put to me that the housing supply position is 2.06 years, which is a chronic shortfall. Given this, although modest in scale, the proposal would make an important and much needed contribution to the district housing supply. Also, as a small site, it could be built out relatively quickly. I therefore afford the delivery of the proposed dwellings significant weight in my decision.

The proposal would have modest social and economic benefits arising from the construction and occupation of the dwellings. While there may also be potential environmental benefits arising from the high level of thermal performance, low energy use and energy generating features of the dwellings, as well as biodiversity enhancement, the detailed design of the dwellings is not a matter considered at the permission in principle stage. There is also no mechanism for me to secure these benefits at this stage. I can therefore only afford them limited weight.

I have taken careful account of the representations of nearby residents, which comprise a range of concerns including highway safety. It is important to recognise that the application subject to this appeal is for permission in principle. There will be no planning permission until technical details consent has been granted and there is no requirement for this to be given automatically. Technical matters such as the design, scale and massing of the dwellings, the condition and maintenance of the access track, drainage, parking, and the effect of the proposal on biodiversity and the living conditions of those who live nearby, would be addressed at technical details consent stage. The range of concerns raised would not make the appeal site unsuitable for the proposal in principle and have therefore not led me to dismissing the appeal.

In terms of highway safety, it has been put to me that vehicle movements along the rural access track associated with the sewage works are not infrequent, and include larger vehicles, such as vans and lorries. The access track forms part of PROW 536(B), so there is also the possibility of frequent pedestrian movement along it. However, while there is no formal footway, the unmade nature of the track means that these vehicles are likely to be moving slowly, the section of PROW along the track is fairly short and there is good visibility. For these reasons and given that the vehicle movements arising from the proposal would be modest, I am not of the view that unacceptable effects, which would make the appeal site unsuitable for the proposal in principle, would arise in this regard. Any proposed works to the access track would be addressed at technical details consent stage.

Given the shortfall in housing supply, paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) falls to be considered. Permission should therefore be granted unless any adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

I have found that the proposal would be at odds with the Council’s development strategy and, while not explicitly referred to in the Council’s reason for refusal, would conflict with Policy SWDP 2 of the Local Plan. The development strategy is broadly consistent with the Framework in terms of supporting housing developments in rural areas that reflect local needs. Nevertheless, Policy SWDP 2 of the Local Plan restricts the type of development permitted in rural areas where it would be located beyond the development boundary, whereas the Framework only restricts the type of development permitted in rural areas where the development would result in isolated homes in the countryside.

The appeal site is located on the edge of Alfrick within a safe walking distance of a shop, post office and bus stops. As such, the proposal would not result in isolated homes in the countryside. Future occupants would likely use the local services and facilities. The proposal would therefore support the vitality of the rural community and accord with Paragraph 83 of the Framework.

Accordingly, although the appeal site is located beyond the development boundary, I am of the view that it is not in an unsustainable location. For this reason, the adverse impacts arising from the conflict with the development strategy, including any harm to the public interest and the plan-led system, would be limited and would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal. Thus, in this case, material considerations justify allowing the appeal.

For the reasons above, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR