Appeal 6001083

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal proposal is for permission in principle. This consent route has two stages. The first stage establishes whether a site is suitable in principle, with the scope of the considerations limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. The second stage, the technical details consent, is where the detailed development proposals are assessed. The proposal is at the first stage and I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The description of development above is taken from the application form, though I note the form more specifically indicates a minimum of one dwelling and a maximum of two dwellings. I have considered the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable in principle for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site comprises a strip of grassed land to the front of [address] where it fronts [address]. The land stands between the communal entrance drive in front of No 6 and a low, timber boundary fence which separates the site from further grassed verges forming highway land. The site is some 30 metres wide by 10 to 11 metres deep. It contains a number of mature trees with others located in the adjacent highway verge.

[address] is a distinctive collection of single storey and two storey red brick dwellings and barn conversions set back from the road. Large dwellings of contemporary design are under construction to the rear, but are set well back and do not interfere with the intimate scale and tranquil character of [address] as seen from the road. Larger dwellings also exist to either side on [address] but are set in generous plots well screened by mature boundary planting. As a result, they appear distinct from [address] and there is not a continuous or uniform pattern of development along this side of [address]. The substantial trees on and adjacent to the site make a significant, positive contribution to the established character and setting of [address], helping to enclose it from the main road and create a verdant setting. I am informed that six trees within the site boundary are subject to a tree preservation order (TPO) made on 20 October 2025.

In response to the Council’s concerns over the lack of space for two dwellings, the appellant points out that the proposal seeks permission in principle for 1 to 2 dwellings, and a single dwelling would have sufficient space. The relevant requirement under the Regulations1 is to ensure the amount of development sought by the applicant is made clear on the decision notice. The Regulations do not place a positive duty on the decision-maker to specify any alternative range to that applied for. I understand that a lesser number than two could be sought at technical details stage, but in order to grant permission in principle, I must be satisfied that the proposal is capable of accommodating the maximum number of dwellings sought.

The site is in the built-up area and surrounded by established residential uses. As such, housing would represent an appropriate land use in principle. However, the site is a small area of amenity grass forming part of the soft landscaping to the front of the [address] development. Though argued by the appellant to be no more than ‘incidental’ land, I saw that it functions alongside the highway verge as a buffer between the dwellings and the main road, providing separation from the busy thoroughfare and also creating a sense of openness and lower density to the front of the site. It also contributes positively to the verdant frontage of the development along with the established tree canopy. These qualities would be substantially lost as a result of the proposal, replaced with new built form in a highly conspicuous position to the front of the existing development.

The proposal, being for permission in principle, does not include any details of scale, layout or design. However, the site has fundamental constraints to achieving a suitable residential development, not least the presence of protected trees within the site. I accept that detailed matters relating to protection of trees during construction are for consideration at the technical details stage. Nonetheless, the substantial tree cover both within and adjacent the site would stand to the western side of any housing and would create significant enclosing and overshadowing effects for future occupants. The trees would stand very close, if not overhang, any dwelling and would create a significant risk of pressure from future occupants to remove trees in order to improve sunlight and daylight to windows and garden areas, or due to perceptions of risk from falling debris or the ongoing costs of tree maintenance. I am unconvinced, having seen the constrained size of the site, that any dwellings could be designed to be sufficiently separated from the existing trees so as to avoid these risks and the consequent threat to their long term health and their contribution to the visual amenity of the area.

I accept that the full impact on the character and appearance of the area would be assessed at technical details stage, but there are still impacts that any built form would have that can be understood at the permission in principle stage. Here, the narrow width of the plot and aforementioned presence of protected trees represent significant physical limitations to any development. Even if relevant space 1 Article 5A of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 standards can be met, the narrow shape of the site and need to accommodate parking, garden areas and external circulation space would result in dwellings either being significantly smaller than neighbouring dwellings, including the elongated [address] properties and the substantial detached dwellings across [address], or the buildings extending close to the edges of the site with significant plot coverage, at odds with the generous setback and depth of soft landscaping to the front of No 6. The shallow depth of the site and its position between the main road and the shared internal drive would also lead to dwellings having secondary elevations facing onto public or communal spaces in at least one direction, contrary to the existing, coherent orientation of the main front elevation of No [address]. Such physical constraints mean dwellings, whether one or two, would not integrate with the existing pattern of development, but would appear squeezed onto the site in a discordant, cramped manner.

More broadly, and fundamentally, development of the site for housing would result in a harmful loss of character, due to the severe erosion of the soft landscaped area and the existing sense of space, tranquillity and separation from the road it provides, but also as any building on the site would obscure the handsome, broad front elevation of No 6 and undermine legibility and appreciation of the consistent layout and architecture of the [address] development.

For these reasons, the proposal, having regard to its location, land use and amount of development sought, would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. This harm would conflict with the development plan, in particular criteria 3 and 4 of Policy 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 (October 2019) (the LPP2), which require development to provide sufficient space within the site to accommodate he proposal together with ancillary amenity and circulation space; and for, among other things, the scale, density and layout of the proposal to be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the neighbouring buildings and the surrounding area. There would also be conflict with Policy 11 of the LPP2, in particular criteria c) and e) which require infill development in the built-up area to be on sites which do not make a significant contribution to the amenity of the surrounding area by virtue of its character or open nature and that the proposal would not have an adverse visual impact.

The appellant refers to an appeal decision2 in support of his case. However, I am provided with neither the decision letter nor any supporting documentation to ascertain if the proposals are comparable. To the extent that the Inspector in that appeal is stated to have made clear the parameters of the permission in principle process, I concur with my colleague. However, unlike that appeal, I have found that development in this case would not be visually contained and read alongside existing buildings. My findings are not based on a specific design, but the principle of developing a visually prominent but physically constrained site.

I have had regard to comments made in public representations. A number of these refer to matters falling outside the scope of permission in principle and more relevant to the technical details stage, such as specific impacts on neighbours’ living conditions or vehicular access. Concerns over existing legal convents are separate matters outside of the planning system and are not decisive to my 2 APP/H1840/W/24/3337635 conclusions. Overall, whilst I note the concerns raised, I have limited my considerations to the matters of location, land use and amount of development.

The provision of additional dwellings in a built-up area within reach of numerous local services and facilities would be a benefit of the proposal. However, although the National Planning Policy Framework aims to significantly boost the supply of housing and supports development of windfall sites within an existing settlement, it also requires high quality design and effective use of land which, for the reasons set out, the proposal would not achieve. In this context, and given the small scale of the development, the benefit of housing in this case would be limited. So too would any economic benefits arising from the construction of the development and spending by future residents in the local area.

In my judgment, the benefits of the proposal, taken together, would not amount to material considerations which would outweigh the identified conflict with the development plan, to which I afford significant weight, and would not justify a decision being made other than in accordance with the development plan, taken as a whole.

Consequently, the appeal should be dismissed.