Appeal 6000520

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal scheme relates to an outline proposal with all matters reserved for future consideration except access. I have considered the appeal accordingly. Plans have been submitted as part of the appeal which indicate how the proposed development could be accommodated on the site. I have taken these plans into account for indicative purposes only insofar as they concern the reserved matters.

The main issues are:  whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt including its effect on openness and the purposes of including land within it, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies;  whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development;  whether the proposed development provides an adequate contribution to affordable housing; and  whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is located on [address], outside of any defined development boundary and is situated within the Green Belt. It is currently part of a residential garden.

The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and therefore the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. It further establishes that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate unless it is an exception as outlined in paragraph 154 of the Framework.

Based on the evidence before me, the appeal scheme would not constitute a building for agriculture and forestry, would not result in the provision of appropriate facilities as outlined in paragraph 154(b) of the Framework, it would not be an extension or alteration of a building, replacement of a building, limited infilling in a village, result in affordable housing for local community needs, limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land nor any of the other forms of development as outlined in paragraph 154(h) of the Framework.

Regarding the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out factors that can be taken into account when considering the openness of the Green Belt. It outlines that the openness of the Green Belt includes but is not limited to both spatial and visual aspects, duration and remediability and degree of activity1.

Whilst the appeal site is currently residential garden and does benefit from clear boundaries, there is not a significant frontage of built form along [address] and thus an absence of a street elevation pattern. The boundaries which currently contain the site would, in my planning judgement, prevent unacceptable harm regarding the spatial aspect of the Green Belt. However, to my mind, it would remain that the introduction of the appeal scheme would result in an unacceptable sprawl of built form in visual terms. Therefore, in my judgement, it would have more of an impact on openness of the Green Belt in visual terms than the existing circumstances.

I acknowledge that the appellant contends that harm to openness could be mitigated through design and landscaping in particular through a subservient design as well as tree and hedge planting. However, landscaping, scale and appearance are reserved matters, and therefore not within the scope of this appeal.

Given all of the above, in my judgement, the appeal scheme would result in moderate harm to the visual aspect of the openness of the Green Belt.

The appeal site is within the open countryside for planning purposes and therefore Policy SWDP2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 (the SWDP) is relevant because, amongst other things, it outlines exceptions for development in the open countryside. Given that the proposed development would not be for a 1 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 013 [name]: 64-[phone] rural worker’s dwelling, rural employment development, a rural exception site, building for agriculture and forestry, a replacement dwelling, house extension, replacement building or renewable energy project it does not meet any of the criterion.

Therefore, given all of the above and based on the evidence before me, the appeal scheme would conflict with Policy SWDP2(c) of the SWDP.

Policy SWDP4 of the SWDP outlines that new development should reduce the reliance upon private motor vehicles and provide genuinely sustainable travel choices.

The appeal site is approximately 0.3 miles from [site address] which is identified as a category 3 settlement and thus would provide access for future occupants to key services and access to a bus service. [name] consider this to be an acceptable distance for future occupants, I acknowledge that there is limited street lighting along the A442 which is a relatively busy highway.

The appellant has provided evidence in the form of an automatic traffic count which was located on [address]. The appellant contends that the traffic environment is calm and would be compatible with safe pedestrian and vehicular movements. However, it remains to my mind, that given the lack of street lighting along the A442, it would be unlikely that future occupants would elect to walk to the services in [site address] . Consequently, in my planning judgement, it is likely that future occupants would use private motor vehicles for daily activities.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge that adjacent to the site is [address] Shop which would help to provide essential daily amenities to the future occupants and other services are located within approximately 1km in distance from the appeal site. There are also two bus stops located within [site address] which are within an approximate [address] from the appeal site. However, whilst these facilities would provide adequate access to provide essential daily amenities, the regularity of the bus services is limited and would not likely provide an adequate service for daily trips such as commuter journeys.

The appellant highlights that the appeal scheme would be sustainable in terms of construction and operation with reference to low carbon design and water efficiency, amongst other things. However, given that the appeal scheme is for outline permission with appearance amongst other things reserved for future consideration, the design of the proposal is not a matter within the scope of this appeal.

Considering all of the above, the appeal site would, on balance, be located in an unsuitable location for the proposed dwelling. It would therefore conflict with Policies SWDP1, SWDP2 and SWDP4 of the SWDP. These policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure developments are in suitable locations and minimise the reliance upon private motor vehicles whilst providing genuinely sustainable travel choices.

The Framework states that the provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, it does however provide an exception for designated rural areas in which policies can set a lower threshold for affordable housing. The appeal site is within a designated rural area.

Policy SWDP15 of the SWDP requires for residential development on sites of less than five dwellings a financial contribution towards local affordable housing provisions based on the cost of providing the equivalent in value to 20% of the units as affordable housing on site.

The appeal scheme would result in a new residential development in a designated rural area. Therefore, a financial contribution is required in order for the appeal scheme to comply with Policy SWDP15.

[name] acknowledge that the appellant is willing to enter into a unilateral undertaking or section 106 agreement to secure a contribution, there is no adequate legal mechanism before me. Moreover, PPG outlines that no payment of money or other consideration can be positively required when granting planning permission2. Additionally, it provides that exceptionally a negatively worded condition can be imposed. However, given that I have found harm regarding other main issues, the imposition of a negatively worded condition would not, in my planning judgement, be appropriate.

In conclusion, the appeal scheme does not provide an adequate contribution to affordable housing and therefore conflicts with Policy SWDP15 insofar as it seeks to ensure that residential development provides an appropriate financial contribution to affordable housing provision.

The appellant contends that the appeal scheme would result in the efficient use of residential garden land adjacent to a settlement edge, I attach modest weight to the appellant’s claimed benefit due to the scale of the development.

Moreover, a lack of harm regarding highway safety and the safe access to the appeal site as well as compliance with other policies in the SWDP such as SWDP22 regarding biodiversity as well as SWDP27 in relation to renewable and low carbon energy (online version) are neutral factors in my determination of this appeal.

The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework advises that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. It also indicates that inappropriate development is by definition harmful and should not be approved except in ‘very special circumstances’. These will not exist unless potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The appeal scheme would deliver a net gain of one dwelling and given that the Council has stated that they are able to demonstrate a housing land supply of 1.1 years, this attracts moderate weight due to its scale. However, whilst the scheme would positively contribute to housing provision, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case due to footnote 7 of 2 Paragraph: 005 [name]: 21a-005-20190723 paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework, which outlines that harm to the Green Belt provides a strong reason for refusing the appeal scheme.

Consequently, the benefits that would result from the appeal scheme regarding the provision of one dwelling would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harms I have identified regarding its location and absence of an adequate financial contribution to affordable housing. Therefore, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the appeal scheme do not exist.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.