Appeal 6001067

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a maximum of 1 dwelling at Hillcrest, [site address] , Bude [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/06217.

Planning Practice Guidance advises that permission in principle 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) (PIP) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second (‘technical details consent’ stage) (TDC) 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 PIP is granted.

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.

Policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010-2030 (LP) sets out a hierarchical strategy for the delivery of new housing based on the role and function of places. This Policy provides that outside larger named settlements, housing growth is to be delivered through, amongst other means, infill schemes and development of previously developed land (PDL) within or immediately adjoining a settlement of a scale appropriate to its size and role.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal site constitutes PDL, or that the appeal site could accommodate the quantum of development proposed and I see no reason to disagree. Nevertheless, to gain support from LP Policy 3, the appeal site needs to be within or immediately adjoining a settlement.

In this instance, whilst the appeal site is within a linear grouping of dwellings where people collectively live in permanent buildings, due to the small number of dwellings located on one side of the road divorced from any other groupings, and the lack of a recognisable centre or wider settlement form, I find that the character of the grouping of buildings is more akin to a low density straggle of development. Consequently, I find that this grouping of dwellings is not a settlement as anticipated within LP para 1.68 or the Chief Planning Officer’s Advice Note – Infill/[name] (December 2017).

It follows that the proposal does not meet the requirements of infill schemes or development of PDL as outlined within LP Policy 3. Nevertheless, LP Policy 21 seeks to ensure the best use of land in certain circumstances, including ‘sustainably located’ proposals that use PDL.

There are some facilities available at Wooda Holiday Park (stated by the appellant to be 500m away), and the small settlement of Poughill. However, the nearest services and facilities required for day-to-day living are located in Bude, which, the Council states to be 2.8km away. Nevertheless, I observed that the highway to these locations features no footpath or street lighting, and limited pedestrian refuge off the vehicular carriageway in areas.

In combination with the distance (even that to the alternative access at Wooda), walking and cycling from the site to nearby services and facilities, particularly in the dark, inclement weather or in colder months, would be unattractive to most future occupiers.

However, the appeal site is located on an established bus route. Whilst the nearest bus stop is some distance from the appeal site along the highway, the service operates as a ‘hail and ride’ service. The bus service, even given the number of buses a day, or the possibility that buses wouldn’t stop directly outside the appeal site at times due to traffic conditions, would nonetheless provide an occasional alternative mode of transport for future occupiers for some journeys, particularly to those wider services and facilities available at Bude.

Nevertheless, in this instance whilst some facilities could be reached by alternative modes of transport, future occupiers of the proposal would still be partially reliant on private vehicles to reach wider services and facilities for day to day living.

In rural areas some form of private transport is often likely to be necessary as recognised within the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document 2023 (CEDPD). The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) also recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in decision-making. Given these factors, harm arising from the appeal sites lack of accessibility to services and facilities would be modest.

Finally, whilst the proposal could provide [name] (EV) charging points, there is no certainty that future occupiers would utilise EVs.

To conclude, the proposal is not suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development. As such, the proposal is contrary to [name] 1, 2, 3, 7, and 21 and CEDPD policies C1 and T1. Amongst other things, these seek to achieve sustainably located development and take a hierarchical approach to direct development based on the role and function of places,

LP Policy 27 is referred to within the reason for refusal. This Policy, amongst other matters, requires development to Provide safe and suitable access to the site for all people and not cause a significantly adverse impact on the local or strategic road network that cannot be managed or mitigated. Given the spatial relationship of the appeal site to the highway, I see no reason why a scheme which could provide safe access and not adversely impact on the road network cannot come forward at TDC. Therefore, I find no conflict with this Policy at this PIP stage.

The Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply of deliverable housing sites and have stated that their supply is 3.8 years. In these circumstances the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is engaged.

The proposal would achieve an increase in housing supply in an area with an acknowledged lack of housing provision. As such the proposal would align with the Framework where it seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing. Furthermore, the Framework acknowledges that small-scale developments can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement and be built out quickly and promotes the effective use of PDL to meet the need for homes. Due to the scope and small scale of the proposal, this benefit attracts modest weight.

Additionally, the proposal would provide other modest short term economic benefits from the construction of the proposal and further modest economic and social benefits from the future occupation of the dwelling and associated support of local services and facilities.

However, the proposal would conflict with [name] 1, 2, 3, 7, and 21 and CEDPD policies C1 and T1 and the development plan as a whole. These policies are broadly consistent with the Framework’s objective of achieving sustainable development and actively manage patterns of growth. Nevertheless, the Framework also recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Whilst there will be some reliance on private vehicles to reach services and facilities, given the relatively short distances to travel by private vehicle if needed, and public transport options available, I give this conflict modest weight.

In this instance, and at this ‘permission in principle’ stage, 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. As a result, the application of Paragraph 11d) of the Framework indicates that permission should be granted.

A number of other appeal decisions have been brought to my attention by the Council. Whilst my findings in relation to such matters as settlements, accessibility and consistency of policies with the Framework are broadly consistent with the other Inspectors findings, each case involves a differing site and therefore differing circumstances and effects.

The Planning Practice Guidance1 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.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. However, material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.