Appeal 6001180

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance (the 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.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted.

The Guidance explains that, in summary, that a decision on whether to grant permission in principle to a site following a valid application must be made in accordance with relevant policies in the development plan unless there are material considerations, such as those in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and national guidance, which indicate otherwise.

The application form specifies the maximum number of dwellings proposed is three and the minimum as three. In effect, three dwellings are proposed and I have considered the proposal accordingly.

The main issues are whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, proposed land use and the amount of development, in relation to: • whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies, • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework set out that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, other than in a few exceptions. These include paragraph 155 which allows for the development of homes on grey belt land where specific criteria are met. Local Plan policies LO1 and LO8 of the [name] 2011 refer to a general requirement to comply with Green Belt policy.

‘Grey belt’ is defined in the Framework’s glossary as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or other land that does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143, excluding land where footnote 7 policies would give a strong reason for refusal. The purposes at paragraph 143 include checking unrestricted sprawl, preventing towns from merging, and preserving the setting and special character of historic towns. On the evidence before me the appeal site would fall within the “other land” limb, rather than previously developed land.

Although the site lies within a National Landscape, the Council does not consider that designation as a strong reason to refuse the current proposal. In lights of its limited visibility from wider vantage points, its modest scale and its close relationship with existing built form, I find no reason to disagree. The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the National Landscape would be a matter for further consideration at any subsequent technical details consent stage.

The site sits adjacent to existing residential development, and the appeal proposal is modest in scale, for three dwellings. On the information provided, it would not lead to harmful encroachment into the wider countryside, nor, given its location within a hamlet, would it cause the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area or contribute to the merging of towns. There is no evidence that the site contributes to the setting or special character of an historic town. In terms of paragraph 155(a), the amount of development, land use and location are such that the development would not fundamentally undermine the Green Belt purposes, taken together, across the plan area.

The Council accepts that it cannot presently demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. For applications involving housing, footnote 56 to paragraph 155 confirms that a lack of a five-year supply amounts to a “demonstrable unmet need” for the purposes of paragraph 155(b).

The key dispute is whether the development would be in a sustainable location for the purposes of paragraph 155(c), having particular regard to paragraphs 110 and

Paragraph 110 requires the planning system to manage patterns of growth so that significant development is focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes, while recognising that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions vary between urban and rural areas. Paragraph 115 requires decision-makers to ensure that sustainable modes are prioritised, that safe and suitable access for all users can be achieved, that design reflects current national guidance, and that any significant transport impacts can be mitigated through a vision-led approach.

The appeal site is in a rural location, about 0.4 miles south of the centre of [site address] . On my visit and from the submissions I find no evidence of a bus service serving this section of [site address] , even on an infrequent basis. The primary carriageway is narrow, unlit and without pavements or refuges over considerable stretches, and vehicles can travel at the national speed limit. Given those conditions, walking and cycling would not provide a realistic or safe alternative for many day-to-day journeys for a wide range of users, in particular children, older people and those with mobility impairments, contrary to the emphasis in paragraph 115(b) on safe and suitable access “for all users”, and the accessibility aims in paragraph 117(a) and (b).

The National Design Guide treats a 10-minute walk, around 800 metres, as a typical benchmark for local facilities. There is no evidence before me of day-to-day services within or close to that distance, and the route conditions would in any event be likely to deter most walkers and cyclists. Those factors point away from this being a location that is sustainable in transport terms for the purposes of paragraph 110.

I have noted the Council’s use of the Department for [name] and its settlement hierarchy, both of which indicate poor connectivity. The connectivity tool is for guidance rather than policy, and I accordingly attach limited weight to the scores in isolation. Even so, the outputs are consistent with, and reinforce, my findings above on paragraphs 110 and 115.

Comparisons to nearby permissions immediately north and south of the site1 do not alter my findings. The cited decisions pre-date the current Framework and were determined by reference to different policy tests, including re-use of existing buildings and very special circumstances. Likewise, whilst the Tandridge appeal decision at Chaldon 2 referred to the proximity to built form around the appeal site, it turned in part on the presence of pavements, a bus service and proximity to a village hall, which are not replicated here. Accordingly, I attach little weight to those decisions, and I have assessed the scheme on its own merits.

For these reasons, the proposal fails paragraph 155(c). As the Framework requires all of paragraph 155’s criteria to be met, the development cannot benefit from the grey belt exception. I therefore conclude that the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, to which I am required to attach substantial weight. 1 Application Refs 18/01079/FUL and 19/02020/FUL 2 Appeal Ref APP/M3645/W/24/3347815

A 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, and openness has both a visual and spatial dimension.

The existing site comprises part of a grassed field with a degree of enclosure from boundary fencing and planting. It contains several ornamental fruit trees, and the topography is generally flat. There is a strong sense of openness within the site itself due to the absence of built form. Although residential dwellings sit to the north and south, the separation between those buildings and the appeal site, combined with the low density of development and the modest scale of the houses, maintains a sense of openness around them and around the site.

The strength of this openness is tempered by boundary vegetation, including a mature hedgerow along [site address] . Combined with the flat topography, this limits visibility of the site to some extent. However, boundary planting cannot be relied upon to remain in perpetuity, and private views from nearby dwellings along [site address] are likely to exist.

The proposal involves changing the use of a considerable part of the open grassland to residential use. The site area is of a significant size, and the extent of the change of use, in light of the amount of development, would introduce a domestic appearance including from the residential buildings and associated paraphernalia. Together, these elements would adversely affect spatial openness in particular. The three dwellings proposed would represent a substantial increase in built form compared with the existing situation. When combined with the extent of the residential land use, this would lead to a clear loss of outlook and openness within the site, which would adversely affect openness in visual terms.

[name] have considered whether detailed design or planning conditions as part of a later TDC could offer some mitigation, I am not persuaded that mitigation could prevent a significant detrimental effect on openness, given the amount of development proposed. The proposal would erode the openness of the area in both spatial and visual terms. While the existing enclosure would limit the extent of visual harm, harm would nonetheless occur, and the impact on spatial openness would be significant given the amount of development and the nature of the proposed land use.

The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in a loss of openness. The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very Special Circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The scheme would make a modest contribution towards the supply of housing in a rural area, and towards the government’s target to significantly boost the supply of homes at a time when the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing. Small sites can make an important contribution towards housing delivery. However, as the scheme relates to the provision of three additional dwellings, the proposal would only make a small contribution towards the supply of housing.

Overall, the other considerations raised do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm identified. Therefore, the very special circumstances necessary to justify development in the Green Belt do not exist.

Taken together, there are other considerations in this case that weigh modestly in favour of the development. However, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is harmful by definition. There would also be significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework explains that any harm to the Green Belt attracts substantial weight. Overall, the other considerations raised do not clearly outweigh the harm identified. Therefore, the very special circumstances necessary to justify development in the Green Belt do not exist.

In addition to the main issues identified above, I acknowledge the other concerns raised by interested parties, including a local ward member, these include the effects on parking and highway safety, the effect of the construction process on living conditions and wildlife. However, as I am dismissed the scheme on other grounds, it is not necessary to consider these matters further.

Whilst paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is applicable due to the Council's housing supply position, the policies in the Framework that protect the Green Belt provide clear reasons for refusing the development. Paragraph 11(d)(i) sets out that because there are clear reasons for refusing the development, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.