Appeal 6000779

These are conjoined appeals by the same appellant for similar development on adjacent sites. Appeal A seeks permission in principle for two to six dwellings and Appeal B seeks permission for one to two dwellings. I have considered each appeal on its individual merits, although to avoid duplication, I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated.

Interested parties have referred to an emerging local plan. However, I have not been provided with it and given its stage, I have determined this appeal with consideration of any relevant policies from the existing development plan.

The proposals are 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. Both of the appeals relate 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 permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeals accordingly and therefore have regarded the submitted plans for both appeals as indicative only.

The main issue for both appeals is whether the appeal site is grey belt land and whether the proposals would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework provides further instances of not inappropriate development besides those referenced in paragraph 154. It states that 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 suitable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework and d) where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘[name] requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 of the Framework.

The term ‘Grey Belt’ is defined in the Framework as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that in either case does not contribute to any of the purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143.

Both of the appeal sites are located outside of a recognised settlement boundary and therefore to my mind, are not part of a large built-up area. Furthermore, they are bounded by existing dwellings. Accordingly, the proposals would not contribute to the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area. It therefore follows that the appeal schemes would not result in the merging of neighbouring towns or fail to preserve the setting and special character of any historic towns. Consequently, the appeal schemes meet the criterion to be classed as Grey Belt, and part a) of paragraph 155 is met.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and it therefore follows that there is a demonstrable unmet need for residential development. 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] Consequently, considering the proposals would provide housing, part b) of paragraph 155 would be met.

Part c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework requires development to be sustainably located with respect to its approach to transport accessibility. The appeal sites are within a reasonable walking/cycling distance to [site address] as well as Madeley and also benefit from a bus stop near to the site with services to Newcastle and Nantwich. Therefore, future occupants of the appeal schemes would benefit from sustainable transport options. Thus, the appeal schemes would comply with part c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Finally, part d) references the [name], however these rules only pertain to major housing development (any housing scheme of 10+ units or site area of 0.5ha or more). Consequently, it does not apply to either appeal schemes.

Regarding a previous application and subsequent appeal on the appeal sites which was dismissed. I do not have the full circumstances of it before me, moreover each case is determined on its own merits and legislative context.

Concerns regarding the loss of agricultural amenity land and particularly equestrian facilities has been highlighted, however I have identified above that there is a demonstrable unmet need for residential development. Consequently, for the reasons given above this does not lead me to a different conclusion.

In conclusion, the appeal sites subject of both appeals are in the Grey Belt and would comply with paragraph 155 of the Framework. However, the appeal schemes would conflict with Policies SP1 and ASP6 of the Newcastle-Under-Lyme and [name] 2006-2026 (the CSS), Policy H1 of the Newcastle-Under-Lyme Local Plan 2011 and Policy HOU1 of the Madeley Neighbourhood Development Plan 2018-2037 insofar as they seek to ensure that development is sited in appropriate locations and prioritise brownfield sites.

Notwithstanding this, the proposals would comply with Policy SP3 of the CSS which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure the accessibility of new residential development by walking, cycling and public transport. Moreover, the Framework is a material consideration of great importance which in my planning judgement outweighs the conflict with the aforementioned policies. Consequently, the appeal schemes would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt.

Interested parties have raised concerns regarding the effect of the appeal schemes on living conditions including light, outlook, privacy, noise and dust. Additionally, the effect of the proposals on highways safety. I note reference to a planned development of around [address] to the appeal site, however I do not have the full circumstances of it before me. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits. Concerns have also been raised regarding parking provision, wildlife including protected species and possible land contamination. These are matters dealt with at the [name] stage. Consequently, they are not determinative for either appeal in this case.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that appeal A should be allowed.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that appeal B should be allowed