Appeal 6000665

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner heading above, I have taken the address from the appellant’s appeal form rather than the application form, as the appeal form address provides some additional detail pertaining to the site’s location. For the same reason, I have utilised the description of development from the decision notice rather than the application form, and added the postcode provided in the appellant’s appeal form.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that permission in principle 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. The second “technical details consent” (TDC) stage is when the 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 permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if permission in principle is granted. The application form states the proposed development as a range of between one and three dwellings. Legislation1 requires any grant of permission in principle to specify the minimum and maximum net number of dwellings which are, in principle, permitted. I have determined this appeal accordingly.

The main issues are: i) whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with particular 1 Article 5A of The Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017 reference to whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including its effect on openness; and ii) 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 is within and surrounded by Green Belt as shown on the [name] of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (Adopted 2021) (HLP). [name] policies governing the Green Belt are before me. The Council instead refers to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the London Plan.

Policy G2 of the London Plan states that the Green Belt should be protected from inappropriate development. Framework Paragraph 153 states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances (VSC). This approach is also reflected in Policy G2. The Framework also states that VSC will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Framework Paragraph 154 sets out that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of a list of exceptions applies. One such listed exception is criterion e): limited infilling in villages.

Neither the HLP nor the Framework provide a definition for what constitutes “limited infilling”. Case law2 has also held that this is essentially a question of fact and planning judgement for the decision-maker. Having regard to the nature and potential size range of the proposed development, the location of the site and its relationship to other, existing development adjacent to it on each side, I find that the proposal can be described as limited infilling.

The HLP and the Framework also do not provide a definition of what constitutes a “village”. [name] is not explicitly defined as a settlement in the HLP. The HLP Policies Map also does not annotate the [name] area as including a town, district, local centre, or settlement boundary, with buildings “washed over” by Green Belt designation. Site-specific references to villages in the HLP are limited to Orchard Village and historic Rainham Village.

Whether or not a site falls within a village is however not solely determinative on a local plan settlement boundary, or a lack thereof. Case law3 has held that this matter is essentially a question of fact and planning judgement for the decision-maker. I see no reason why this should not include an on-the-ground assessment of the appeal site and the proposal.

In the vicinity, [address] contains some rows of dwellings, but this built form is not fully continuous. There are also larger areas of undeveloped land along the [address] frontage opposite the appeal site, and beyond its rear boundary. Ladyville 2 R (Tate) v Northumberland County Council [2018] [name] 1519 3 [name] v SSCLG, Gravesham Borough Council [2015] [name] 195 Lodge care home immediately to the east is a large building, but it is set back from the road and set within large grounds. There is mainly undeveloped land beyond the care home to the east, with buildings well set back from the road behind shrubbery, including the [name] golf club and hotel facility.

Public entrances to the [name] public house, at [address] near to the [address] junction, were boarded up and closed off during my visit. The adjacent commercial/industrial site appeared occupied by businesses including car and van rental. These sites are near to groups of dwellings and are dissected by a Public Right of Way (PRoW). This route eventually leads to [name] to the west, which is surrounded by some other private buildings, and there is a large area of intervening undeveloped land along each side of the PRoW.

[name] is located beyond the [address] junction to the north, and I also saw a car sales premises further beyond at the [address] junction, separated from the nursery by a significant area of undeveloped land. I also saw two other distinct groups of dwellings on the section of [address] west of the [address] junction, and along [address] north of [name].

For the above reasons, I found [name] to comprise a dispersed cluster of dwellings, buildings and services. Whilst this might collectively be described as a village, there is no clear nucleus. Although the abovementioned facilities may provide a level of recreational, community and employment opportunities, I found no facilities and services to meet every day residential needs. Moreover, the immediate built environs of the appeal site are loose knit and somewhat sporadic.

Having regard to all the above factors, I conclude that the appeal proposal is not within a village. I am conscious that the scheme seeks to deliver a flexible range of between one and three dwellings, and that the design, scale, height and mass of the dwelling or dwellings (which could include a bungalow form) could be secured at TDC stage. Such considerations however cannot alter this conclusion.

In order to conclude whether the appeal site comprises grey belt land, I must assess whether it strongly contributes to any of Green Belt purposes a), b), or d) as set out in Framework paragraph 143. I have had regard to the Green Belt Planning Practice Guidance, as it includes advice on how to determine whether land constitutes grey belt in decision making.

Purpose a) is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. The site is enclosed by highway along its front and shrubbery and fencing along its other boundaries, which restrict and contain development. Its size and shape relative to the sites to each side would also avoid an incongruous pattern of development.

Purpose b) is to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. Purpose d) is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. As already set out above, the HLP indicates that [name] is not a town or part of a town. In this context, the proposal site does not form a substantial part of a gap between towns or form part of the setting of a historic town.

In conclusion, based on the evidence before me, the appeal site does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes a), b), or d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework. It can therefore be described as grey belt land for the purposes of this appeal.

Framework paragraph 155 sets out that 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 paragraphs 156-157 below.

The HLP Policies Map shows an extensive expanse of Green Belt land beyond the appeal site’s northern and southern boundaries. The appeal site is of small size by comparison and is contained along its side boundaries by developed plots. The remaining countryside would thus be safeguarded from encroachment, and there would also be no conflict with the other Green Belt purposes as listed in Framework paragraph 143. The development would therefore not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the HLP area.

Footnote 56 to the Framework sets out that in the case of applications involving the provision of housing, a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed includes where the [name] (HDT) was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years. The latest HDT results for 2023, published by the Government in December 2024, shows the Council’s HDT result as 61% (i.e. between the financial years of 2020-2023, there were 61% as many completions as the number of homes required). For this reason alone, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.

The appeal site has a low Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of between 1a and 1b, 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 two bus stops on each side of [address], with regular routes to Romford, Brentwood and Upminster, Grays, [name] and Lakeside.

Most of the [address] route from the site to the [address] junction is however not served by footway, and much of the [address] footway is narrow. This would deter or constrain some non-vehicular users, and the PRoW route to the church would also prove physically challenging for some pedestrians. Given this along with the limited everyday facilities and services in the vicinity, I 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.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework which, amongst other things, seek to actively manage patterns of growth in support of sustainable transport modes and objectives. It follows that the appeal scheme would amount to inappropriate development of grey belt land, irrespective of the final precise amount and size of dwellings.

As the proposal does not comprise major development , the Framework’s ‘[name] are not applicable. Framework Paragraph 155 d. is therefore not applicable.

For the above reasons, the appeal scheme amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt when having regard to the Framework.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate an adequate supply of deliverable housing sites. Provision of up to three dwellings could form an efficient use of the land. It would make a small but material contribution to housing delivery on land near some other residences, and in a Borough with a notable amount of land constraints and housing supply targets. I afford moderate weight to these benefits.

The proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt that is, as set out in the Framework, harmful to the Green Belt by definition. Whilst the precise quantum of development would be for consideration at TDC stage, provision of between one and three dwellings within this undeveloped site would inevitably harm the openness of the Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms. I am not persuaded that the spatial and visual harm could be mitigated at TDC stage to such an extent so as to preserve the openness of the Green Belt.

The Framework also states that an essential characteristic of Green Belts is their openness, and that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Collectively, the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm that I have identified. Consequently, the VSC necessary to justify the development do not exist.

Application of Framework policies that protect Green Belt land therefore provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. In turn, this leads to conflict with the relevant requirement of London Plan Policy G2, as already set out above, and which forms part of the development plan that the Council operates under. In the absence of VSC, the inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as I have identified, amounts 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 development plan.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.