Appeal 6000543

The appeal is allowed for Permission in Principle for one self-build dwelling at [site address] , [address], [site address] , Cheltenham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, 24/01000/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 two 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 two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent 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 net number as part of the application. In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for one dwelling on the appeal site.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development, with particular regard to the development strategy for the area and access to services and facilities. Appeal Decision: 6000543

The appeal site is part of the garden to [site address] , which is a large, detached house set within a large garden. It is outside of Cheltenham and not within or next to any of the settlements identified in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan 2011-2031 (the TBP). For planning purposes, the appeal site is considered to be within open countryside.

Policy SP2 of the Gloucestershire, Cheltenham and [name] 2011-2031 (the JCS) details the distribution of new development across the three areas and seeks to focus development at Gloucester and Cheltenham. [name], the focus is for housing in the town, rural service centres, and service villages. Outside of the identified settlements Policy SD10 of the JCS applies and reiterates the settlements as the focus for new housing, resisting development outside of settlements. Four exceptions are provided, none of which would apply to the appeal scheme. The proposal would, therefore, fail to comply with Policies SP2 and SD10 of the JCS.

Policy RES3 of the TBP reflects Policy SD10 of the JCS in seeking to limit new housing outside of settlement boundaries, unless it complies with one of the seven exceptions detailed. The appeal proposal is not for any of the forms of development set out in the exceptions. Policy RES4 of the TBP also supports new housing within and adjacent to the built-up area of rural settlements not identified in the settlement hierarchy. However, although the appeal site is near to other houses, including the host dwelling, Leckhampton is part of the town of Cheltenham and not a settlement on its own.

For the above reasons, the location and land use would, therefore, not be suitable for residential development with particular regard to the development strategy for the area, as set out in Policies SP2 and SD10 of the JCS and Policies RES3 and RES4 of the TBP.

The appeal site is beyond the settlement boundary for Cheltenham. However, the host dwelling is one of a number of large houses on this side of [site address] that continue the built form out from Cheltenham into the countryside. Although there are gaps between the houses these form garden areas. The appeal site, the host dwelling, and the houses around it are part of the transition between the main built-up area of the town and the countryside beyond. However, they are not detached from Cheltenham and not separated by any meaningful gap.

The nearest bus stop is approximately 450 metres to the south. This is, therefore, within walking distance of the appeal site and the bus stop provides access to the services and facilities within Cheltenham town centre. I accept that the walk from the bus stop to the appeal site would be uphill and that the hill is quite steep. Nevertheless, although this might limit the use by those less able, it would still be within walking distance for able bodied residents.

The pavement along [site address] is narrower than the Council would require for a new pavement and the speed limit for most of the road from the bus stop is 40mph. However, it is an existing pavement serving a number of existing houses Appeal Decision: 6000543 and I saw residents walking along it during my visit. I also accept that it is unlit but this is appropriate for the rural edge of town location. Overall, in my judgement, the appeal site is within walking distance of a bus stop and this would provide genuine alternatives to the use of the private car.

[address] does not have a pavement and also provides access to car parks serving [site address] which are regularly used by walkers. Nevertheless, this road is fairly straight from its junction to the appeal site and is wide enough for someone to walk on while a car is also driving along the road. It also serves as access to at least two other properties near to the appeal site. Furthermore, the distance from [site address] road to the appeal site is short and pedestrians walking along [address] would be able to wait for a car to pass. Consequently, I find that access to the appeal site on foot would not be unsafe or unsuitable.

The appeal site also lies within cycling distance of a significant part of Cheltenham, including schools, medical facilities, employment, and retail uses. The traffic speeds and steep hill might deter children and less confident cyclists. However, the proximity of the site to the town by bicycle would also provide a genuine alternative to the use of the private car. Furthermore, the use of electric cycles would reduce the strain of cycling up the hill.

Although the future occupants of the development would likely have access to a car, and use it for linked trips or access to secondary and higher education and for larger shopping trips, there are also genuine alternatives through walking to the bus stop and cycling that would reduce the reliance on the private car for all journeys. Moreover, the proximity of the site to Cheltenham would only result in short car journeys where these are required.

For the above reasons, I find that the location and land use would be suitable for residential development, when considering the access to services and facilities.

The appeal site lies within the Cotswold National Landscape (the NL). The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in NLs which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. It also advises that the scale and extent of development in these areas should be limited.

Section 245 of the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 (the LURA) amended the duty in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in relation to NLs to require relevant authorities, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a NL to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of it.

The special qualities and key components of the NL include the tranquillity of the area, extensive dark skies, distinctive settlements, and accessibility of the landscape. As far as it is relevant to the appeal, I consider the character of the landscape is, in part, derived from the open countryside around the settlements. The appeal site is currently garden, albeit in the open countryside. The host dwelling and other houses and the use of the land as garden already affects the NL and its special qualities. The appeal proposal would be read alongside the existing housing, even when viewed from the car park to [site address] . The Appeal Decision: 6000543 proposed landscaping would also provide enhancements. For these reasons, I find no harm to the NL and the amount of development would be suitable.

The Council accept that their self-build register includes entries from residents seeking sites at [site address] . The appellant has also provided evidence of the number of entries in the register and the cumulative number of permissions granted for self-build plots. Even if I accept all of the single dwelling permissions are self-build units this information indicates a shortfall in the number delivered against how many are required.

Although the appellants have advised that they would be willing to enter into an agreement to secure the development as self-build I have no such agreement before me. I, therefore, have no means to ensure that the development is carried out as a self-build dwelling, in accordance with the requirements of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. I am, therefore, not able to give this benefit any weight in the decision.

Both main parties agree that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply with the Council quoting a supply of 3.14 years. This is a significant shortfall and paragraph 11d) of the Framework therefore applies. For the reasons given above, the location of the appeal site within the National Landscape would not provide a strong reason to refuse the proposal.

Policies SP2 and SD10 of the JCS and Policy RES3 of the TBP are the most relevant in considering the proposal. All three take a more restrictive approach to development in the countryside than the Framework. However, they are broadly consistent with the Framework as a whole in seeking to enhance the natural and local environment and recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. As such I have given the conflict with these policies significant weight in this appeal. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and I attribute substantial weight to this in the overall balance.

The appeal site lies within an area where there are existing houses and no particular set character or layout. In my judgement it would be possible to design a scheme at the technical details stage that would reflect other developments in the immediate area and the visual harm of the proposal would, therefore, be localised and reduced by it being a continuation of other built development. Consequently, the harm to the character and appearance of the area would be limited.

The proposal would accord with the Framework which seeks to boost the supply of housing and recognises the contribution small sites can make to meeting the housing requirement of an area. The proposal would also provide economic benefits both during and post construction. I afford significant weight to the provision of a new house, even if it is not secured as a self-build dwelling. However, as only one dwelling is proposed the benefit is limited when weighing the merits of the scheme. I therefore afford significant weight to the limited benefit the development would make to addressing the housing shortfall.

Moreover, although the appeal site is not within or next to any of the settlements identified in the TBP it is near to the principal town of Cheltenham. As detailed above I find that the site is within walking distance of a bus stop and within cycling distance of the services and facilities in the town, even though the return journey Appeal Decision: 6000543 would be up a steep hill. Although the site is not within the settlement, I find that it is suitably located to promote sustainable and active travel and genuinely offer an alternative to the private car.

For the above reasons, I find that the harm from the conflict with the development plan would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that would arise from the development, when assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole. Accordingly, there are material considerations, which indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan.

The PPG makes it clear that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle, whose terms may only include the site location, type, and amount of development. Therefore, I have not imposed any conditions.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.