Appeal 6001105

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has two 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 two stages, and so my scope is limited to matters relevant to location, land use, and the amount of development proposed. The appeal proceeds on this basis.

In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for up to nine dwellings on the appeal site. A site block plan has been submitted, which is marked as illustrative only. I have therefore considered this as such.

The main issue is whether the location, land use, and the amount of development proposed are appropriate at this site, with particular regard to: • the level of accessibility; • the effect on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether or not very special circumstances exist for development in the Green Belt.

The appeal site is located within the open countryside, adjacent to two separate sections of the Cookhill village development boundary. The appeal site consists of horse paddocks, bounded by pockets of dense vegetation, hedgerows, trees, and some areas of fencing and gated access points. The site has a reverse L shape layout surrounded by existing residential properties and agricultural and equine related uses.

The appeal site and the village of Cookhill are within the West Midlands Green Belt, which consists mainly of open countryside and agricultural uses, with some small villages and sporadic development.

Policy SWDP2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) (the Plan) sets out the Council’s development strategy. This strategy promotes sustainable patterns of development by focusing most development on Worcester and other urban areas and presents a settlement hierarchy where some growth will be directed. Settlements are categorised in the hierarchy based in part on the range of services and facilities they have. The village of Cookhill is classified as a ‘Category 4b village’, which are settlements with a low / medium level of public transport and a low provision of services and facilities.

A public house is within a short walking distance from the appeal site along a footpath. Other facilities including a village hall, church, and nursery, are located further from the site and would be accessed via a narrow and predominantly unlit path. While there is a bus stop within walking distance from the appeal site which provides access to larger settlements with a good provision of services and facilities, the frequency of buses serving the village is limited.

The existence of public transport services and paths to local services and facilities would allow future occupiers of the development to access services and facilities using sustainable modes of transport. Furthermore, some future occupiers of the proposed development may be hybrid workers or work from home and may utilise online delivery services to meet their needs. However, the limited frequency of the bus services and poor quality of paths to services and facilities further away from the site are likely to result in future occupiers using a car to address most of their daily needs.

The appellant has suggested that an increased future use of artificial intelligence could reduce the need to travel. However, I have not been provided with any evidence on how this could have an effect and to what extent it would reduce the need to travel.

The appellant has identified two recent decisions (W/25/00843/PIP and W/24/00443/PIP) as examples which have established the area as a sustainable location for new residential development due to accessibility to services and facilities. These sites are located some distance from the appeal site, and significantly closer to the greater range of services and facilities available in [name]. The difference in location does not therefore allow for any meaningful comparisons to be made regarding the suitability of the location of the appeal site for residential development.

Within this small village context the proposal represents significant development. Consequently, the proposed development would not meet the sustainable transport aims of paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework), which states that significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. While the Framework notes that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, the scale of development proposed would result in a significant increase in households likely to be reliant on the use of a motor vehicle to access the majority of their daily needs.

For the reasons outlined above, the appeal site would not be an appropriate location for the proposed development, with particular regard to the level of accessibility.

This is contrary to Policy SWDP2 of the Plan, which seeks, amongst other things, to direct new development to appropriate and sustainable locations. There is also conflict with Policy SWDP4 of the Plan, which requires, amongst other things, development proposals to demonstrate that they will minimise demand for travel and offer genuinely sustainable travel choices.

The Council also referred to Policy SWDP1 of the Plan within the reason for refusal relating to the location of the proposed development. This policy sets out the Council's approach to decision making, reflecting the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the Framework. This is addressed later in my decision.

The open and undeveloped character and appearance of the appeal site play an important role in the rural character of the area, providing a clear visual countryside break in built form between the two separate areas of the village of Cookhill.

The amount of development proposed would result in the loss of this entire undeveloped gap, which would have an urbanising effect detrimentally changing the existing countryside character and appearance of the area. While the existing and indicatively proposed soft landscaping may reduce the visual effects of the proposed development, the appeal proposal would nonetheless be visually prominent from beyond the length of the outer site boundary between the existing separate areas of the village. As such, it would not be a sympathetic and well-integrated form of development.

Consequently, the proposed land use and the amount of development proposed would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework which seeks to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would conflict with Policies SWDP21 and SWDP25 of the Plan which, amongst other things, require proposals to integrate effectively with their surroundings and integrate with the character of the existing countryside landscape setting. Effect on Green Belt (i) Whether inappropriate development

Policy SWDP2 of the Plan reflects the Framework in seeking to maintain the openness of the Green Belt, and states that development proposed within the Green Belt will be considered in accordance with national policy as set out in the Framework.

The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The Framework sets out at paragraph 155 that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where (a) the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; (b) there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; (c) the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework; and (d) where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘[name] requirements set out in Framework paragraphs 156-157.

In relation to the requirements of paragraph 155 a) of the Framework, it is agreed between the parties that the appeal site constitutes grey belt. Taking into account the purposes of the Green Belt outlined within paragraph 143 a), b) and d) of the Framework, and associated exclusions within footnote 7, I concur that the appeal site is grey belt. In addition, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that the proposed development would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt in the area.

The Council confirms that it cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, with only 1.1 years’ supply identified. Accordingly, for the purposes of paragraph 155 (b) of the Framework, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed, which would provide a positive contribution to housing supply in the area. As the appeal proposal does not meet the definition of ‘major development’, criterion d) of paragraph 155 is not applicable here.

However, in terms of my earlier findings on accessibility, the appeal site is not a sustainable location as required within paragraph 155 c) of the Framework. The proposal therefore fails to meet all of the exceptions in paragraph 155 and consequently constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out the categories of development which may be regarded as not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to certain conditions. I have been directed by the appellant to exception e) limited infilling in villages, as being relevant to the proposed development.

The Framework does not define ‘village’ or ‘limited infilling’. As such, it is a matter of judgement for the decision maker depending upon the individual circumstances of the case and the site. The appeal site is not within the Cookhill development boundary, which confirms the extent of the village as defined within the Plan. Being beyond the boundary, the appeal site is located adjacent to, and not in, the village. Furthermore, the proposed development of 9 dwellings in this countryside location, adjacent to a small village, does not constitute limited infilling.

I have been directed to two recently approved applications (W/25/00843/PIP and W/24/00443/PIP) as examples of development determined by the Council as not inappropriate. However, these sites are some distance from the appeal site and differ in size and in the number of dwellings proposed. As such, they do not provide a meaningful comparison.

Consequently, the proposed development would not constitute limited infilling in a village and would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt when assessed against paragraph 154 of the Framework and Policy SWDP2 of the Plan.

For all of these reasons, the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. (ii) Openness of the Green Belt

The appeal site currently consists of a series of undeveloped paddocks with boundary vegetation which allows for open views into and across the site. While there are no detailed plans before me, an illustrative site block plan has been submitted to show how 9 dwellings and access could be accommodated on the site.

The proposed development by virtue of the amount of built form, associated boundary treatments, outdoor amenity space, access road and areas of hardstanding for driveways, parking and vehicle manoeuvring, would inevitably lead to a loss of openness of the Green Belt in visual terms.

In utilising all available land between the two separate sections of the Cookhill village development boundary, the proposal would result in the loss of the physical gap in development between those two developed areas. The resulting encroachment of development into this area of open countryside would therefore reduce the openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms.

The identified reduction in visual and spatial openness would be harmful to the Green Belt. This would be contrary to the aims of the Framework stated within paragraphs 142 and 143, which amongst other things, seek to keep land permanently open and safeguard the countryside from encroachment.

For the above reasons, the proposal would be contrary to Policy SWDP2 of the Plan which, amongst other things, seeks to safeguard and (wherever possible) enhance the open countryside and maintain the openness of the Green Belt. (iii) Whether very special circumstances are demonstrated

In summary, the proposed development does not meet any of the exceptions listed in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework. The proposal is therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances, as stated in paragraph 153 of the Framework. In addition to the harm to the Green Belt by virtue of its inappropriateness, the proposed development would also result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt. In accordance with paragraph 153 of the Framework, I give substantial weight to each of these harms.

I have also found that the appeal proposal conflicts with the spatial strategy in the Plan, which seeks to direct new development to appropriate and sustainable locations. It would increase the demand for travel and does not provide genuinely sustainable travel choices. In addition, the proposed land use and amount of development would harm the character and appearance of the area. Each of these matters weigh substantially against the appeal proposal.

The proposed development would deliver market and affordable housing in an area with a significant deficit in housing land supply, where currently only 1.1 years of supply is identified. As a smaller site, the appellant has also advised that the proposed development would be built out relatively quickly. I attribute substantial favourable weight to each of these benefits.

The proposal would deliver some associated socio-economic benefits arising from the construction of the dwellings. The proposed development would also contribute to the Framework’s aim to enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, where future occupants would be likely to use and support local services. Paragraph 85 of the Framework states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity. However, in this instance as the level of economic benefits has not been clearly evidenced and would be limited to only that which could be reasonably expected from the construction of 9 dwellings, these matters each weigh moderately in favour of the appeal proposal.

It is possible that biodiversity improvements could be incorporated on the appeal site. However, in this case the level of potential biodiversity benefits has not been clearly evidenced. Accordingly, this matter attracts limited weight in favour of the

Overall, the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is not clearly outweighed by the other identified considerations. Therefore, in conclusion very special circumstances do not exist.

Consequently, in the absence of very special circumstances and the associated conflict with national Green Belt policy, the appeal proposal conflicts with Policy SWDP2 of the Local Plan.

The Council has confirmed that it is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. However, paragraph 11 d) i) of the Framework recognises that there are circumstances where the application of policies in the Framework to protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the proposal. Footnote 7 identifies the Green Belt as such an area. In this case, I have found that the potential harm to the Green Belt would not be clearly outweighed by other considerations, and this provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11d) of the Framework does not apply here.

The proposal would not support sustainable patterns of travel and would be harmful to the countryside character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, it would introduce a type of land use and amount of development which would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. Significantly, I have found that very special circumstances do not exist to support the location, land use, and amount of development proposed.

The proposal would deliver some benefits, including a contribution towards the significant shortfall in the housing land supply. However, the matters weighing in favour of the appeal proposal do not outweigh the identified conflicts with the

As such, the site is not appropriate for the proposed development having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development. The proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole, as well as policies within the Framework, and there are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the

For the above reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.