Appeal 6000835

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal seeks permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this consent route has two stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable for development in principle. The second stage (technical details consent) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed.

The PPG further advises that the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development to be permitted. An applicant can apply for permission by expressing a minimum and maximum net number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for one dwelling on the appeal site.

Plans and drawings showing how a dwelling could be developed at the site were submitted alongside the original application. However, as the proposal is for permission in principle, I have treated these as indicative only.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is suitable for residential development having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development, in particular with regard to its access to facilities and services, as well as the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site lies at the edge of [site address] , adjacent to but outside the settlement boundary for the village. In planning policy terms, it is therefore in the ‘open countryside’ as established through the [name] (adopted 2016) (the [name]).

Taken together, [name].1, CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 establish the district’s spatial strategy, including a settlement hierarchy that concentrates growth to its larger settlements. This approach seeks to focus development where it can best support sustainable patterns of growth, ensuring new development is well related to existing facilities and services.

[name].15 and AS.10, together, set out restricted circumstances in which types of development in the countryside may be permissible. This includes small-scale schemes for housing to meet a need identified by the local community. Policy AS.10 of the [name] establishes that the local community need is to be identified in a Parish Plan, Neighbourhood Plan, or other form of local evidence. Further guidance on the nature of local need evidence is provided under the Development Requirements Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2019) (the SPD).

The appellant previously kept horses on the site and continues to maintain it. However, this personal association, and the possibility of family members attending a local school or being involved with the school PTA, do not constitute evidence of an identified local community need or a qualifying local connection as sought under the SPD. Furthermore, no compelling justification has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal—although promoted as a self-build plot for the appellant or her family—meets any specific locally arising housing requirement.

Notably, the proposal has not been progressed through a Parish or Neighbourhood Plan, and the most recent local housing needs survey is now too dated to be relied upon. No robust or up-to-date assessment of local community housing needs has been submitted with the appeal. In addition, representations from the Parish Council and local residents indicate an absence of community support, contrary to the expectations of Core Strategy Policy AS.10, its supporting text, and the guidance set out in the SPD.

In addition to not demonstrating a local community need, the appeal proposal has also not been shown to meet any other exceptions for the delivery of housing in the countryside set out under [name].15 and AS.10.

Moreover, whist located nearby to existing housing, the site remains in a highly rural setting. The appeal site lies a considerable distance from the range of facilities and services that would sustain day to day needs. Given the distances involved, the nature of the surrounding rural roads, including the topography, an absence of streetlights and limited surveillance I do not find the appeal site’s context to be conducive to promote walking or cycling as a means of accessing everyday facilities or services. A bus service is available from within the village, but the evidence before me indicates that services are extremely limited. As such, occupants of the proposed dwelling would be heavily reliant on the use of the private car for most needs. This would be the least sustainable travel option.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport will vary between urban and rural areas, still, the site’s context results in it not being accessible by sustainable travel modes.

Bringing the above together, the appeal site is not a suitable location for residential development having regards to its location and its access to facilities and services. The proposal is also in conflict with [name].1, CS.15, CS.16, as well as AS.10.

Although the appeal site lies opposite existing dwellings, it sits within a distinctly rural landscape characterised by open rolling fields, varied topography, hedgerows and pockets of woodland. These features impart a strong sense of tranquillity and high landscape value, consistent with its designation within the Arden Special Landscape Area.

From the evidence before me, the stables have not been used for some time. Nonetheless, both the building and the land’s equine use still read clearly as part of the rural landscape, with the stables’ form and scale typical of such a setting.

The dwellings that stand on the opposite side of the road follow a generally consistent building line that clearly defines and visually contains the edge of the village. By contrast, the appeal site reads as part of the wider countryside, owing to its equine use and the scarcity of residential development on this side of the road.

The detailed design of the scheme is not before me, but the introduction of a dwelling in this location would nevertheless represent an encroachment of residential built form into the countryside. The development would be likely to intensify the use of the site and introduce an urbanising influence that contrasts markedly with the prevailing rural character associated with its current equine use. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the rural landscape.

I do not consider the above matters would be suitably overcome through the detail design of the development, including its potential small footprint or limited height. Nor do I consider that landscaping would provide appropriate mitigation. As landscaping should not be used to screen otherwise unacceptable development, nor should it be relied upon given its long-term success or retention cannot be guaranteed.

Accordingly, I find the appeal site is not suitable for residential development having regard to its location, land use and the amount of development, given the effect it would have on the character and appearance of the area. The appeal scheme therefore conflicts with [name].5, CS.9, and CS.12. Together these policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development respects the character and distinctiveness of the area and protects landscape quality.

The proposal is described as a self-build dwelling. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 (the Act) establishes that local planning authorities have a duty to grant planning permission in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for self-build and custom housebuilding (SCBH) in the authority area arising in each base period.

The PPG advises that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle and its terms may only include the site location, the type of development and amount of development. Similarly, a planning obligation cannot be secured at the permission in principle stage.

Although the description of development refers to a self-build dwelling, it does not reflect the full, precise language of the Act, nor does the description of the development specifically refer to the Act. Moreover, no details of what a potential condition or planning obligation (at technical details consent) would specify/entail are before me, including whether they could meet relevant legislative requirements. Accordingly, from the available evidence, I do not consider there to be an appropriate mechanism to secure the proposal as SCBH.

Even if I were to accept the proposal could be appropriately secured as SCBH, it would deliver only a single unit. Additionally, there is no robust evidence before me to refute the Council’s views that there is a surplus of self-build plots available within the authority area. As such, the benefits to be afforded to the proposal as a self-build dwelling would remain modest.

No specific details of the level of vehicular movements associated with the existing use of the site have been presented. Still, I consider the proposed residential use would likely increase vehicular movements to and from the site compared to its current use as a stable. As such, I do not find the appeal scheme would result in sustainability benefits through reduced transport requirements.

Compliance with other development plan policies, for example, in respect of flood risk are neutral matters in my overall planning balance.

The proposal would contribute to housing supply in an authority area where there is currently a shortage and would utilise previously developed land. There would also be socio-economic benefits associated with the construction and subsequent occupation of the proposed dwelling. Given the scale and nature of the proposal, such benefits would though be modest.

Through conflicting with [name].1, CS.5, CS.9, CS.12, CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10, the appeal scheme is contrary to the development plan as a whole. These policies are broadly consistent with the Framework in respect of promoting development in accessible location and encouraging high-quality design appropriate to its setting. The weight to the conflict with the relevant development plan policies is therefore significant.

The proposal would align with the aims of the Framework to significantly boost the supply of housing and its recognition that small-scale developments can make an important contribution to meeting housing requirements. It also would utilise previously developed land and provide socio-economic benefits through adding to the mix of housing available in the area. Notwithstanding the Council’s housing shortfall, and the fact that the appeal scheme would be of great importance to the potential occupiers, the proposal relates to a single dwelling and therefore the benefits would be modest.

Against the above, the proposal would conflict with the Framework where it seeks to promote patterns of growth that limit the need to travel and offer genuine choice of transport modes. It would also be contrary to the Framework’s aims of promoting design that is sympathetic to local character including landscape setting. These are matters to which I attach significant weight.

Together, I find the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

In conclusion, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.