Appeal 6001066

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the erection of 1no. self-build dwelling at [site address] , [site address] , Cheltenham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00594/PIP.

I have removed wording from the development description above which does not describe development.

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 consent route has 2 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 2 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 is granted. The Council’s objections relate to the location and character and appearance, in addition to the proposal representing inappropriate development within the Green Belt. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) has been submitted with the appeal. This relates to a financial in relation to the Cotswold Beechwood Special Area of Conservation (SAC). This is discussed below.

As such, 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 specific reference to access to services and facilities and: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies.

Policy SD5 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] 2011-2031 (2017) (JCS) seeks to protect the Green Belt from harmful development. Policy GRB4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan 2011-2031 (2022) (TBP) sets out that development within the Green Belt will be severely restricted to ensure it continues to fulfil the five purposes of the Green Belt, and sets out that new buildings are inappropriate in the Green Belt with some exceptions, in accordance with the Framework.

The list of exceptions set out within TBP Policy GRB4 does not include development on grey belt land. This is because these policies significantly predate the December 2024 Framework. Due weight should be given to its policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. Accordingly, I have given significantly greater weight to the Framework in determining whether the appeal proposal is inappropriate development in this regard. Moreover, JCS Policy SD5 sets out that within the Green Belt, development will be restricted to the what is ‘deemed appropriate’ by the Framework.

The sporadic pattern of development and large open fields along [site address] has a countryside character and does not represent the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area. Given its siting some distance from any defined settlement, the proposal would not merge towns into another nor affect the setting and special character of any historic town. As such, the site does not strongly contribute to these Green Belt purposes.

While there is sporadic development nearby, the site is not part of a settlement or town and would have open fields to the rear and opposite. Therefore, it would not lead to sprawl nor the merging of towns and the site also does not contribute to these Green Belt purposes.

‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. The appeal site lies within the Cotswold National Landscape, which is included in footnote 7.

The special qualities of the Cotswolds National Landscape are set out in the Cotswolds National Landscape Management Plan (2025) (Management Plan). Given the neighbouring and nearby residential development, the appeal site does not reflect these characteristics. The appeal proposal would have a highly localised effect and would be perceived in connection with the nearby residential built form. As such, I am satisfied that the proposals would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of this nationally designated area. This designation does not therefore provide a strong reason for refusing development in this instance, and I therefore have no reason to disagree with the main parties that the appeal site meets the definition of Grey Belt provided in Annex 2 of the Framework.

Given the limited scale of development and its location near to existing built form and the junction of the [site address] and the A46, the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites, and therefore the proposal meets the criteria of demonstrable unmet need. The scale of development does not meet the Framework major development definition, and so the ‘[name] requirements of paragraphs 156-157 are not applicable.

As set out above, the appeal site sits some distance outside the settlement of Bentham. From what I observed, Bentham does not contain any services and facilities other than a Church, and the nearest settlement providing some services and facilities is Shurdington, designated as a ‘service village’ within the development plan. This is located to the north, and provides amongst other businesses, a plant nursery/garden centre, public houses, post office/convenience store and village hall. Whilst not lit the entire way, the vast majority of the brief journey to these facilities would be along the pavement/path along the A46. This would provide safe and convenient access.

Moreover, there are bus stops in close proximity to the appeal site providing access to the numerous supermarkets and services of Cheltenham. Even if the service is limited, it is regular and offers a genuine convenient alternative choice of means of travel to future occupiers. The appeal site is therefore reasonably well connected.

Accordingly, the intended future occupiers of the new dwelling would not necessarily be likely to have a high reliance on a private motor vehicle to access day to day services. Consequently, I find the proposal would not conflict with paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework, which seek to maximise sustainable transport solutions, nor the enabling of sustainable travel choices goals of goals of JCS Policy INF1.

None of the criteria relating to grey belt land are concerned with openness. Therefore, this should not be a consideration in determining whether proposals are inappropriate development in this regard or not, as set out in Framework footnote 55.

As such, whilst not meeting the exceptions set out in TBP Policy GRB4, nor given its location (as discussed below) [name] RES3 and RES4, I conclude that the development meets the criteria of paragraph 155 of the Framework, and therefore also complies with JCS Policy SD5, and does not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The site is located outside any defined settlement boundary, in accordance with Policy SP2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) (DP), and for the purposes of planning policy therefore, the site is located within the open countryside. [name] of this policy sets out that development in the open countryside is strictly controlled. The purpose of this policy is, amongst other matters, to provide for and facilitate the delivery of sufficient housing and to safeguard and, wherever possible, enhance the open countryside.

The proposal would not comprise of development that meets the exceptions set out in Policy SD10 or other DP policies.

TBP Policy RES4 permits very small-scale residential development ‘within and adjacent to the built-up area of rural settlements’ not featured within the settlement hierarchy. Bentham has no settlement boundary and so this applies in this case.

Whilst there are nearby dwellings, these are sporadic, surrounded by large open fields and do not represent a consistent pattern of built form nor a built-up area. The appeal site is not therefore adjacent to nor within a built-up area. The proposal does not comply with this policy therefore nor meet any of the other exceptions set out in TBP Policy RES3.

The proposal does not therefore meet any of the circumstances for new development within the countryside and therefore conflicts with DP Policy SP2 which seeks to control the distribution of housing.

The Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is a European designation recognised by the Habitats Regulations. The SAC consists of ancient beech woodland, some secondary woodland and a small area of unimproved grassland. Evidence in the [name] Strategy (RMS) indicates that public access is having an adverse effect on the habitat of the SAC owing to trampling, erosion, fire risk and contamination. Visitor surveys show people living within 15.4km of the SAC are more likely to visit it for recreational purposes. It follows that additional residential development within that zone would have occupants likely to increase adverse recreational pressure on the SAC.

The appeal site lies within 15.4km of the SAC. The RMS gives details of necessary mitigation for the effects of new development and its approach includes strategic access management and monitoring to make the SAC more resilient to increased recreation, as well as suitable alternative natural greenspace away from the SAC. It similarly establishes financial contributions from development to fund those measures. Based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to doubt that the measures set out for the SAC would be successful in mitigating the effects of the proposal.

Given the the nature of the PIP process, a legal agreement cannot be utilised at this stage to secure any necessary contributions. Nevertheless, a UU has been submitted which the Council have no objection to, and Natural England have been consulted as part of the appeal process and have not objected to the proposal subject to securing a financial contribution. I therefore see no reason why the securing of the financial contribution, including any admin fees, at TDC stage, should it be granted, would secure the necessary mitigation.

On this basis, in carrying out the Appropriate Assessment, the adverse effects of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC would be avoided. For these reasons, the proposal would not harm the integrity of the SAC and would accord with the protection of the [name] goals of TBP Policy NAT5.

The appeal site sits next to existing built form, with other dwellings nearby and near to road junction. As a result, it would not appear as an incongruous projection into the surrounding countryside. Whilst detailed design and siting are matters for consideration at technical details consent stage, I am satisfied that a scheme could be designed that sits comfortably within this existing context, would follow the established spacious road fronting pattern of development and not lead to harm to the character of the settlement nor surrounding landscape.

Given the lack of detail in this stage, consideration of the effect on matters such as the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties biodiversity enhancement are a matter for technical details consent stage.

The proposal would result in an additional unit of accommodation which would contribute to the Government’s broader objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The development would make efficient use of the site, as supported by the Framework. The proposal would also result in a short-term economic benefits arising from the construction process. Economic and social benefits are also likely to arise from the occupation of the new dwelling. However, given the quantum of development in this case, each of these benefits would be modest.

The proposal would conflict with the housing strategy in the development plan. DP Policy SP2 is broadly consistent with the Framework where it states that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth. Given the current significant shortfall, the housing strategy policies are not currently providing sufficient housing. As such I give the conflict with this policy minor weight. Additionally, there is conflict with some development plan Green Belt policies, however, given that these do not align with the Framework, I also give the conflict with these policies minor weight. Nevertheless, the scheme would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council confirms that they are unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, and put the current figure at 3.14 years supply. The presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is therefore engaged.

The proposal would align with the Framework where it seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing, and acknowledges that small-scale developments can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement and be built out quickly. Whilst the scale of the proposal is limited, given the considerable scale of the shortfall identified, this attracts moderate weight.

The economic and social benefits from the build and occupation of the dwelling as well as support for local services, facilities and the community, including those in other villages would be limited given the size of the development, and their weight in favour of the scheme is modest.

The proposal would conflict with the Framework where it seeks to actively manage patterns of growth. However, for the reasons set out above, I give this conflict minor weight.

In this instance, the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The proposal benefits from the presumption of sustainable development as outlined in Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework.

On the basis of the individual merits of the scheme, the material considerations indicate that planning permission should be granted notwithstanding the conflict with the development plan.

PPG 1 indicates that it is not possible to impose conditions as the terms of any permission in principle must only include site location, type of development and amount.

I conclude that, for the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.