Appeal 6000884

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the erection of one dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/05691.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle (PIP) consent route has two stages: the first establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second, [name] (TDC), 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 TDC application, if permission in principle were to be granted.

The Council’s objections to the proposal concern the principle of the development and its accessibility. My decision is therefore focused on these matters. However, the main issue in this case is whether the site is suitable for the proposed development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

Policy CP1 of the [name] (WCS) outlines the hierarchical spatial strategy for accommodating new housing in Wiltshire, with development focused on principal settlements, then market towns, then local service centres, then large villages and finally small villages. The first four of these settlement categories have defined settlement boundaries. The lowest end of the hierarchy, small villages, do not benefit from having designated settlement boundaries.

Policy CP2 of the WCS sets out the Council’s housing delivery strategy and states that, unless permitted by other policies within the WCS, as set out in paragraph 4.25, development will not be permitted outside the limits of development, defined by the settlement boundaries. Policy CP2 states that at small villages, such as Lea, development will be limited to infill within the existing built area. The appeal site is classified as a location outside the defined limits of development under Policy CP2 and there is little to indicate that any of the paragraph 4.25 exceptions apply in this case. It would therefore be categorised as open countryside. The question then, is whether the appeal site would constitute infill development.

Policy CP2 of the WCS defines infill development as ‘the filling of a small gap within the village that is only large enough for not more than a few dwellings, generally only one dwelling’. The appeal site (the site), in terms of its own size at around 0.18 hectares, would only be suitable for a small number of dwellings, and so may be considered to comply with policy CP2 in this regard.

The site is a roughly oblong area of paddock land, located to the south of [address], which at this point is an unmade gravelled lane, and which is a cul-de-sac. The lane travels roughly east to west and becomes a tarmacked road around 50 metres east of the site, just west of the entrance to the car park of the Lea and [name] of [name], which is located to the north of the lane at this point. [address] continues, forming a 45-degree junction with the main road through the village, which is known as ‘[address]’, around 70 metres further east.

To the north of [address], opposite the site, and immediately west of the school, is a property known as ‘Northwick’. It is a substantial residential property which has two separate vehicular accesses to the lane, together with two gravelled driveways and garage and car-port parking areas. Further west of this property on the lane are three further residential properties. The result is a continuous line of development on the north side of [address], from its junction with [address], to its end, around 100 metres west of the site.

There is an area of paddock land immediately to the east of the site. This has been the subject of a PIP application1 for the erection of a single dwelling, which was approved by the Council. Whilst under the PIP application process, full planning permission is not deemed to be granted until the approval of the TDC stage, the principle of the adjacent site as residential land for the erection of a single dwelling has been established, which is a material consideration in this appeal.

Development to the south of the site, consists of rear gardens of residential properties which front onto ‘[address]’. At my visit, it was evident that there are several significant buildings within these rear gardens, and, due to the acute angle of the main road relative to [address], there is a continuous line of built form readily visible to the south of the site. Accordingly, whilst I find that the proposal would be surrounded to three sides by residential development, to the south, this is somewhat distant, and as there is no residential development in the paddock to the west, and open fields beyond that, this leads me to conclude that the site would not constitute the infilling of a small gap within the village. It would, therefore, not gain support from the infilling exception of Policy CP2. Any development on the site would, therefore, be in open countryside. 1 PL/2025/00407

No evidence has been put before me that would demonstrate that the appeal proposal would comply with any of the exemptions for development in the countryside outlined in paragraph 4.25 of Policy CP2 of the WCS. I therefore find the proposal would conflict with Policies CP1 and CP2 of the WCS.

Despite its spatial policy definition, the site is not in an isolated location but is proximate to the developed area of the village, which has a primary school, a village hall, a public house and church. The village is served by public transport, the nearest bus stops being within 150 metres walking distance of the appeal site, with bus services to Malmesbury (defined as a market town in CP1 of WCS) and Chippenham (defined as a principal settlement in CP1 of WCS).

Whilst the village has limited retail and employment opportunities, it is served by public transport to adjacent market towns and principal settlements which would provide access to a wider variety of services and facilities. However, the frequency of such public transport may not meet all the requirements of future occupiers of the proposal, and it is, therefore, likely that there would be some use of the private car to meet some of their requirements. However, paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, which should be taken into account in decision making.

The Council consider that the application at appeal has not demonstrated that the site has a legal vehicular access from [address]. The latter is identified as not being a public highway, but a public footpath with the reference LECL7. It is stated that there is no assumed public right of vehicular access beyond the school, and that any unauthorised use of the above footpath for vehicular access to the site may constitute an offence.

These are legal and technical matters which are not for resolution within the context of a PiP application. They would be for examination at the TDC stage, were the appeal to be allowed. However, as the site has a longstanding field gate access from [address], which must have been used for vehicular access to the site for maintenance purposes and for agricultural use, for a number of years, then it is likely that a solution to vehicular access can be found.

The lane also has longstanding and ongoing vehicular access use by residents of the existing residential properties on [address]. No evidence is before me which indicates that they have been prevented from using the lane for vehicular access, nor that they have faced prosecution for doing so.

The site has a wide field access gate in its northern boundary, which has a mature hedge which is interspersed with trees to its length. This hedge and gate are set back from the edge of the carriageway of [address] by around 2m. Whilst the lane is un-made and un-adopted, it is straight and the set back of the hedge from the edge of the un-made carriageway, leads me to conclude it would provide the opportunity to achieve acceptable visibility splays from any future formalised vehicular access between the site and [address], to provide a safe means of access. There is no suggestion that the existing junction between [address] and [address] is not a safe access to the highway network.

For the above reasons, I find that the proposal would not conflict with policies CP60 and CP61 of the WCS, and I therefore conclude, that highways issues would not be a constraint to the principle of development in this case.

There is no dispute between the parties, that the site is of a sufficient size to accommodate a single dwelling, whilst maintaining acceptable separation from adjacent properties to safeguard privacy and outlook. It would also provide sufficient space for vehicular access, turning and parking, together with acceptable external amenity space for future occupiers, and for landscaping to meet the required minimum 10% [name]. These are all elements that would be dealt with at the TDC stage, were permission in principle to be granted. Therefore, I find that the amount of development would be acceptable.

The evidence indicates that the Council may not have consulted the Highways Authority specifically in relation to the application at appeal. The case officers report, and comments made by the Lea, Garsdon and Cleverton Parish Council at the time of the consultation process, reflect comments made by the Highways Authority at the time of the consultation on the PiP application2 on the adjacent site.

There were a significant number of representations made to the application, all in objection, though the Lea, Garsdon and Cleverton Parish Council did not raise objection. I have addressed a number of these concerns already. However, those relating to the potential effects of future development on drainage and services, on vehicular access and traffic safety, on biodiversity and on the carriageway of [address] are all matters that would be addressed at the TDC application stage.

Similarly, matters relating to loss of residential privacy would also be addressed at the TDC application stage, though the size of the site leads me to conclude that there would be sufficient space to incorporate a single dwelling, whilst providing adequate separation from surrounding development, to maintain sufficient privacy for existing neighbours and future occupiers.

The Council have stated they can currently demonstrate a housing land supply figure of 2.42 years, which is significantly below the 5-years supply required by the Framework. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework indicates that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework, that protect areas or assets of particular importance, provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

There is no evidence to suggest that the policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance as referenced in paragraph 11(d)(i) and Footnote 7 are relevant in this case. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) would apply. This states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would make a small but positive contribution to the Council's serious housing land supply shortfall through a windfall site. There would be some limited economic benefit during the construction phase of development, and longer-term benefits in support of local services and businesses from its future occupants. 2 PL/2025/00407

In policy terms, the site conflicts with the spatial strategy of the development plan. However, in circumstances where the Council’s housing delivery policies have acted to restrict the supply of homes, I do not find the site’s position, technically in open countryside, to be decisive to the outcome of this appeal. As the site is within a village setting, within walking distance to local facilities and with good access to public transport.

Given its location, with effective built form to three sides, I do not consider that developing the site for one dwelling would harmfully encroach into open countryside. The set-back of the hedge from the un-made carriageway to the [address] boundary, would also likely result in vehicular access being provided whilst retaining much of the mature hedge. This would retain the semi-rural appearance of [address] when viewed from ‘[address]’, thus mitigating some of the visual effects of development.

Consequently, the adverse impacts of the proposal associated with its location in open countryside and conflict with some policies of the WCS, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, which is a significant material consideration that weighs heavily in favour of allowing the appeal.

The PPG makes clear that conditions cannot be attached to a grant of permission in principle, and its terms may only include the site location, the land use and amount of development. Where permission in principle is granted by application, the default duration of that permission is 3 years. Applications for technical details consent must be determined within the duration of the permission granted. Therefore, no conditions have been imposed.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. However, material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.