Appeal 6000532

The appeal is dismissed.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that permission in principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development, and has two stages. The first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle. The second “technical details consent” (TDC) stage is when detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first stage and thus solely relates to the principle of the scheme.

Scope of considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and amount of development. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if permission in principle is granted. Legislation1 also requires any grant of permission in principle to specify the minimum and maximum net number of dwellings which are, in principle, permitted. The application form indicates the proposed development as a range of between one and nine dwellings. I have determined this appeal accordingly.

The main issues are whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with particular reference to: • whether the appeal site is grey belt land in respect of: i) its location within the Bromley, Hayes & Keston Commons Conservation Area (BHKCCA), in terms of if this provides a strong reason for refusing or restricting the proposed development; and 1 Article 5A of The Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017 ii) purposes (a), (b) and (d) in paragraph 143 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • if the appeal site is grey belt land, whether the proposal is inappropriate development for the purposes of the Framework and the development plan; • if the proposal is inappropriate development of grey belt land, the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect on the landscape character of the area; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances required to justify the appeal scheme.

The appeal site comprises a southern part of a larger field. Its other boundaries are enclosed by the A21 highway and an intervening tree belt, a hedgerow with another field beyond, and a development including nine dwellings that was allowed on appeal in outline form in 20152 (“the 2015 appeal development”). The proposal site is within the BHKCCA, which is made up of a number of distinct parcels. The parcel containing the appeal site is detached from other parts of the BHKCCA and is known as “[address], [name]” (OHBC).

The PPG indicates that other statutory requirements may apply at TDC stage. However, the general duty in conservation areas under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 applies to the exercise of any functions under the Planning Acts, which includes permission in principle. This duty requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. Accordingly, I afford great weight to the conservation of the BHKCAA.

From what I have seen and read, the significance of the OHBC parcel of the BHKCCA is derived from its rural characteristics, namely the fields enclosed by shrubbery and dissected by the [address] laneway. Whilst there are also residential and modern influences, including the 2015 appeal development, the spacious and verdant setting of the early 19th Century and Grade II Listed Building of Oakley House3 can still be readily appreciated. The undeveloped and rural characteristics of the appeal site therefore form a positive contribution to the significance of this parcel of the BHKCCA, which I found to be an important asset.

At the time of my site visit, along the A21, the proposal site and the 2015 appeal development beyond were both partially visible through trees not in leaf. Both sites are also visible at some distance to the south along [address]. Whilst change does not necessarily equate to heritage harm, provision of up to nine dwellings within this undeveloped location would inevitably fail to preserve the significance of this part of the BHKCCA as a designated heritage asset (DHA), at least in functional terms. 2 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/W/15/3005057 3 [name]: 1064315

The 2015 appeal development involved a redevelopment of previously development land. That is a materially different baseline to the undeveloped appeal site, and thus does not indicate that the proposed provision of up to nine dwellings would avoid heritage asset harm. However, given the land levels and the proximity to the 2015 appeal development, I am satisfied that conflict with heritage asset conservation could be minimised as much as possible at TDC stage.

The proposal would nonetheless conflict with Policy 41 of the Council’s Local Plan (LP) (adopted 2019) and Policies DC3 and HC1 of the London Plan. These policies require, amongst other things, development to preserve and respect the heritage assets (including conservation areas) that contribute towards the local character and conserve their significance.

There is no evidence before me to indicate that the proposal would affect Scheduled Ancient Monuments or other nationally important archaeological sites. The appeal site is however within an Area of [name] (AAS) known as Oakley and [name].

LP Policy 46 sets out that for proposals within a defined AAS, a written statement of the likely impact is required in the form of an archaeological assessment (which can be desk based). Where necessary information cannot be obtained by other means, an archaeological field evaluation should be carried out prior to determination. The above requirements reflect those of Paragraph 207 of the Framework. No such written statement or field evaluation is before me. However, I have no reason to conclude that these matters could not be satisfactorily dealt with at TDC stage, to avoid adverse impacts on archaeological significance.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework indicates that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a DHA, great weight should be given to its conservation. Framework paragraph 213 sets out that any harm to the significance of a DHA should require clear and convincing justification. I have found the harm to the BHKCCA to be less than substantial, but of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, Framework paragraph 215 states that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal decision4 made in October 2024, whereby the Council’s housing supply was tested as part of a public inquiry. The Inspector for that appeal found the Council to have a 2.4-year housing land supply. The Council, in defending this appeal, accepts that the above amounts to a very significant level of undersupply. The submitted evidence also indicates that a shortfall of housing supply in this Borough has persisted for several years.

No public benefits relating to heritage matters are before me. However, provision of between one and nine dwellings would form a material contribution to the Council’s housing supply. The public benefits arising from this are afforded significant weight when having regard to the extent and duration of the Council's housing supply shortfall. Such public benefits are of sufficient weight to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of the BHKCCA and in turn, the conflict with LP Policy 41 and London Plan Policies DC3 and HC1.

There would thus be no conflict with the Framework’s historic environment protection policies. It follows that in the context of Framework paragraph 11d)i and 4 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/W/24/3340223 its footnotes 7 and 8, the appeal site’s location in the BHKCCA does not provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting the development proposed.

Grey belt land is defined in the Framework’s glossary as “land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.” As already set out above, I have found that the site’s location in the BHKCCA does not provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting the development proposed.

I must now therefore consider whether the site forms grey belt land as defined above. I have had regard to the submitted evidence and my site visit observations. I have also drawn upon the PPG which provides advice on how to determine whether land constitutes grey belt in decision making. Having regard to the PPG, the fact that a site comprises open land free from development does not in itself mean that it strongly contributes to the abovementioned Green Belt purposes.

Purpose a) is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. The appeal site is near to the large built up areas of Bromley to the north and Orpington to the southeast. It is however bound by the A21 to the east and the 2015 appeal development alongside it to the west, which restrict and contain the proposal.

The site is not fully enclosed and there are nearby built up areas on the far side of the A21. However, there is sufficient open land to the northwest and south, and directly opposite the site beyond the A21, such that a discernible separation from Bromley and Orpington can remain. To my mind, the site’s size and location alongside the 2015 appeal development, with the A21 on the other side, avoids an incongruous pattern of development. For the above reasons, the site makes a moderate contribution to purpose (a) rather than a strong one.

Purpose b) is to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. There would be inevitably some loss of visual separation between Bromley and Orpington. However, as there are larger areas of open land immediately to the north and southeast, the site does not form a substantial part of a gap between towns. Given this, along with my purpose a) findings already set out above, the site makes a moderate contribution to purpose (b).

Purpose d) is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Based on the evidence before me and what I have seen on site, the appeal site does not form part of the setting of a historic town and has no visual, physical, or experiential relationship to historic aspects of a historic town. The site therefore makes no contribution to the setting and special character of a historic town.

In conclusion, the appeal site does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes a), b), or d) in Framework paragraph 143. The site thus comprises grey belt land.

Framework Paragraph 155 states that the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where all the following apply: a. The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; c. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework; and d. Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘[name] requirements set out in Framework paragraphs 156-157.

The LP’s Policies Map indicates an extensive expanse of largely open Green Belt land beyond three of the appeal site’s boundaries, which reflects what I saw during my visit. The proposal site is small by comparison and is partially contained by the A21 and shrubbery. Surrounding open land between Bromley and Orpington would therefore be safeguarded from encroachment, and there would also be no conflict with the other Green Belt purposes as listed in paragraph 143 of the Framework. The development would therefore not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area.

In the case of applications involving the provision of housing, footnote 56 of the Framework defines “demonstrable unmet need” as, amongst other things, the lack of a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. The evidence before me sets out that the Council has a 2.4-year housing land supply. For this reason alone, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.

I accept that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. However, Framework paragraphs 110 and 115 are in the chapter headed “Promoting sustainable transport” and set out that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of the delivery of sustainable places. This includes realising opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and identifying and pursuing opportunities to promote walking and cycling. I see no reason why these policy aims are not relevant to the appeal proposal.

The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 2, as shown on TfL’s web-based connectivity assessment toolkit (Webcat 3.0). The London Plan advises that a limitation of PTALs is that they only reflect access to the public transport network, but not the opportunities and services reachable through the network. I found the site to be within reasonable walking distance to bus stops on each side of the A21 that are served by footways, with regular routes to Bromley town centre, Catford, [name], Chislehurst and Orpington.

[address] is however not served by a footway, and is mainly a narrow and unlit laneway. This would deter or constrain many non-vehicular users, including those with protected characteristics, as the proposal site is roughly equidistant from the A21 and [address] junctions. The Council’s Highways Officer did not raise objection in respect of highway safety or capacity. However, to my mind the use of this route would not feel particularly safe or desirable for many non-vehicular users, especially during periods of darkness.

I therefore anticipate that future residents at the proposal site would likely be heavily dependent on the use of private vehicles for day-to-day needs, despite the nearby bus stops and local facilities and services along the A21. Relative to the number of existing dwellings on [address], provision of up to nine new dwellings on undeveloped land would amount to a significant development. The Framework states that such development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.

Whilst the proposal may be a short drive to the nearest train station, and is near a major road network (A21) that leads to the M25 motorway, this does not demonstrate that sustainable transport modes are prioritised. The site is not in an isolated location, and future occupants may not be wholly dependent on the use of a private car to meet their day-to-day needs. I nonetheless consider it likely that the development would be primarily car dependent on account of its access location off [address].

Therefore, for the above reasons I must conclude that the proposal would not be in a sustainable location with particular reference to Framework paragraphs 110 and

In this respect, there would also be conflict with LP Policy 33 and London Plan Policies T1 and T4 which require, amongst other things, proposals to reflect and be integrated with current and planned transport access and connectivity, be designed to ensure ease of access and movement for people with disabilities, and to facilitate the delivery of the Mayor of London’s strategic target of 80 per cent of all trips in London to be made by foot, cycle or public transport by 2041.

It thus follows that the appeal scheme would amount to inappropriate development of grey belt land. I accept that the proposal would not generate a severe amount of vehicle movements, and would utilise existing vehicular access routes and points into the site. I also have no reason to doubt that the site could accommodate appropriate levels of onsite car parking at TDC stage. There would be no conflict with LP Policy 32 and London Plan Policy T3 in these respects. That does not however alter my conclusion in respect of the site’s locational shortcomings in terms of sustainability.

It is put to me that the proposal would mirror the situation seen at the 2015 appeal development. However, that scheme involved redevelopment of previously developed land of [name]. The 2015 appeal development decision also does not indicate that the location was a matter of dispute in terms of sustainability, and was made prior to the adoption of the Council’s current LP. That development’s prior circumstances are therefore materially different, and thus it does not justify allowing this appeal.

As the proposal does not comprise major development5, the Framework’s ‘[name] are not a requirement. Framework Paragraph 155 d. is thus not applicable. 5 For housing, development where 10 or more homes will be provided, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares or more.

The proposal site comprises inappropriate development of grey belt land having regard to the Framework. Neither LP Policy 49 nor London Plan Policy G2 refer to grey belt land and are thus out of date in that respect. These policies however reflect the thrust of the Framework insofar as they protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. The proposal therefore conflicts with these policies.

In light of the above conclusion, I must also consider the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. The Framework states that openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. For the purposes of this appeal, I have considered both the visual and spatial aspects of openness.

The appeal site is undeveloped and is in the main well obscured by landscaping. Whilst the visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt could be reduced at TDC stage, subject to matters including retention of and provision of landscaping, the introduction of up to nine dwellings within this site would nonetheless reduce the openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms at least.

The proposal would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing undeveloped situation. Whilst the harm would be moderate, this would be contrary to the Framework where it states that an essential characteristic of Green Belts is their openness.

I am satisfied that a scheme of between one and nine dwellings could follow a design-led approach at TDC stage as required by London Plan Policy D3, and in a manner that would avoid conflict with the design and landscape requirements of [name] 4, 37 and 77. I have no reason to conclude that the quality and character of the local landscape could not be safeguarded at the later TDC stage.

Whilst the refusal reason also cites conflict with LP Policy 73, I have no reason to doubt that a TDC stage scheme could not take particular account of existing trees on the site and on adjoining land, in the interests of visual amenity and wildlife habitat. Therefore, at this appeal stage, material conflict with the abovementioned policies in terms of landscape character has not been demonstrated.

The evidence before me indicates a 2.4-year housing land supply and that a shortfall of supply in this Borough has persisted for several years. I agree that this is a very significant level of undersupply.

Framework paragraph 11d)ii is thus engaged by its footnote 8. This indicates that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to certain key policies, including those for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, and securing well-designed places.

The proposal would provide up to nine dwellings to meet an identified Council-wide need. Whilst the contribution to housing delivery would be modest, this nonetheless attracts significant weight on account of the extent and persistence of the Council's housing supply shortfall.

The duty in Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 applies, as a reference to permission in principle was introduced by the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The distance between the appeal site and the [address], along with the intervening 2015 appeal development, greatly limits the intervisibility between these sites. It would therefore be possible to provide between one and nine dwellings in this location in a manner that would not harm the special character of this Listed Building, and preserve the contribution that its setting makes to its significance.

Subsequent to the implementation of the 2015 appeal development, applications at Nos 1, 2 and [address] were submitted to formalise the use of areas of former agricultural land as additional garden land. All these applications were refused by the Council, but then allowed on appeal. However, these examples are not comparable to the appeal proposal in terms of size or amount of built development or structures, and therefore do not justify allowing this appeal.

The officer report indicates that the appeal site may include best and most versatile agricultural land. Given the site’s small size and location between dwellings and a main road, any loss of such land may not amount to demonstrable harm in economic or other terms as set out in the Framework. Nor have I been directed to any specific local plan policy conflict in this regard. [name] am dismissing the appeal on other substantive grounds, I need not consider this matter any further.

For the reasons given above, the proposal’s location in terms of sustainability would amount to inappropriate development of grey belt land. The scheme thus constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is contrary to LP Policy 49 and London Plan Policy G2. The proposal’s location in terms of sustainability also conflicts with LP Policy 33 and London Plan Policies T1 and T4.

The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances (VSC). Whilst the precise quantum of development would be for consideration at TDC stage, provision of between one and nine dwellings within this undeveloped site would inevitably harm the openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms at least. I am not persuaded that this harm could be mitigated at TDC stage to such an extent that would preserve the openness of the Green Belt.

The Framework requires substantial weight to be attached to any harm to the Green Belt. It also states that VSC will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The other considerations in this case, when taken together, do not clearly outweigh the harms that I have identified. No very special circumstances therefore exist.

Application of Framework policies that protect Green Belt land therefore provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Moreover, when having particular regard to the key Framework policies for directing development to sustainable locations, the adverse sustainability impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In the absence of VSC, these harms amount to conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. The other considerations in this case are not material so as to justify a decision other than in accordance with

The appeal is therefore dismissed.