Appeal 6001185

The appeal is dismissed.

Permission in principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission that separates out consideration of matters of principle from technical details. The scope of permission in principle is limited to the location, land use and amount of development and my assessment focuses on these matters. I have treated the appellant’s proposed site plan as being indicative as the layout of the development is an issue to be determined at the technical details consent stage.

The main issues are whether the site is suitable in principle for 1 to 5 dwellings having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development and (i) the matter of flood risk, (ii) the strategy for the distribution of new development in Tewkesbury Borough, and (iii) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy INF2 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] 2017 (the JCS) states development must avoid areas at risk of flooding in accordance with a risk-based sequential approach. This policy accords with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which advocates a similar approach in respect of flood risk through the application of a sequential test (the ST). The aim of the ST is to not allow development where there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposal in areas with a lower risk of flooding. Paragraph 175 of the Framework explains the ST should be used in areas known to be at risk of any form of flooding, unless a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates no built development would be in areas at risk. Also, the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) explains the ST need not be applied when an assessment demonstrates the development would be safe from surface water flood risk without increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere.

The appeal site is in an area identified as being at moderate to high risk of surface water flooding. The plan provided with the [name] attached to the Council’s written statement indicates that most of the site is subject to flood risk. There is no evidence before me to show the development could not be accommodated on land with a lower risk of flooding. As such, the location of the development would not accord with the sequential approach as referred to under JCS policy INF2 and the ST.

Moreover, no flood risk assessment has been provided to show the built elements of the development would be outside land at flood risk. Indeed, from the evidence provided it seems likely that a large part of the development would be on land that floods. Also, there is no assessment that clearly shows the layout and design of the proposal as well as mitigation measures would ensure the occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be safe from surface water flooding. Furthermore, there is no evidence to demonstrate the development would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

I attach little weight to the appellant’s claims that the harm relating to flood risk could be mitigated as there is little evidence to show a clear understanding of how surface water affects the site during a flood event. Indeed, photographs provided by an interested party show a significant pooling of water to the front of the field and I cannot be certain that these show the full extent of surface water flooding.

I am taken to no government guidance to support the suggestion that flooding is a matter that should be dealt with at technical details consent stage. In the determination of this appeal, I am required to consider whether the location of the development would be acceptable in principle. It is fair and reasonable to conclude at this stage that the development would be in an unsuitable location as the site is subject to flooding, as I cannot be certain there are no alternative sites for the proposal with a lower flood risk and as there is no assessment demonstrating the occupiers of the houses would be safe whilst not increasing flood risk elsewhere. In these regards, the proposal would not accord with JCS policy INF2 and the provisions of the Framework and the PPG on flood risk. Distribution of new development.

With regards to Tewkesbury Borough, JCS policy SP2 states that the need for new dwellings would be met through development at Tewkesbury town and at rural service centres and service villages. JCS policy SD10 allows housing development within built up areas, including infilling within villages.

Policy RES2 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan 2011-2031 (the LP) reiterates the acceptability of residential development within defined settlement boundaries. LP policy RES3 sets out situations where new housing outside settlement boundaries would be acceptable. Most of the specified situations are not relevant to the appeal proposal. However, part 3 of LP policy RES3 allows very small scale development at rural settlements provided it accords with LP policy RES4. This policy sets out requirements for new housing proposals on sites at rural settlements not included within the settlement hierarchy.

The appeal site is outside any defined rural service centre, service village or any other settlement boundary. As such, the proposal would only accord with the JCS and LP policies on the location of housing if it is allowed under LP policy RES4. The stipulations in this policy include that the development should be within or adjacent to the built up area of a rural settlement. Paragraph 3.32 of the LP advises that for the purposes of LP policy RES4, the built up area of a settlement is its continuous form and it does not include groups of buildings which are clearly detached from the built up area.

The appeal site is the front part of an open field and so it appears as part of the countryside. Adjoining the site to one side are 2 pairs of semi-detached houses that face onto the A38. However, fields adjoin these properties on both sides and so they appear as a small group of buildings set away from any built up area. [address] is on the other side of the appeal site. This is a detached house within a sizeable plot and so it is also seen as an isolated property separate from any village. Houses on [address] are to the rear of the wider field but these do not adjoin the appeal site.

It is suggested that [site address] is a sporadic settlement made up of clusters of development often separated by open fields. However, to my mind, the built up parts of the village are limited to the groups of properties in close proximity to each other on [address] and [address]. In light of the provisions of paragraph 3.32 of the LP, it would be inappropriate to treat [address] or the semi-detached houses that adjoin the appeal site as falling within the built up extent of [site address] . As such, the development would not be adjacent to a continuous built area of a settlement nor would it represent infilling within a village.

For these reasons, I conclude the proposal by virtue of its location and land use would not accord with the development distribution strategy as set out in the JCS and the LP. In these regards, it would not accord with JCS policies SP2 and SD10 and LP policies RES1, RES2, RES3 and RES4. In essence, these policies look to direct new housing development to allocated sites and defined settlements with small-scale rural housing being permissible only in certain circumstances. The Council’s refusal reason also refers to JCS policy SP1. This is not relevant in the assessment of this appeal as it is a high level strategic policy. Effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site has a wide frontage with a front boundary hedge that is set below the A38. Also, the land rises up gently from the roadside so that the full depth of the site is readily visible from the highway and the layby opposite. The site does not fall within an area recognised for its landscape quality and traffic noise and the adjacent semi-detached houses also have an influence on the character of the locality. However, the openness of the site and the attractive views across the field from the road make a significant contribution towards the area’s rural qualities and the intrinsic beauty of the countryside.

There is limited and only indicative information before me on the details of the proposal. However, the development is bound to change the appearance of the appeal site from part of a field to at least a single residential property. It is most likely that this change would be visible from the A38 and so the development would have a noticeable effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The introduction of residential development would undermine the site’s rural qualities and its contribution to the wider countryside. A line of dwellings that face the road as indicated would reflect the pattern of the adjacent semi-detached houses and so the development could be designed so as to integrate appropriately with existing properties. However, acceptability in these regards would not address nor overcome the detrimental effects of the proposal on the rural nature of the site through the loss of openness and the interruption of views across the field.

Therefore, I conclude the proposal by reason of its location, land use and the amount of development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. In these regards, it would not accord with JCS policy SD6 and LP policy LAN2. Amongst other things, these policies look for all development to protect landscape character for its intrinsic beauty and to integrate into its landscape setting. Reference is also made by the Council to policy H1 of [site address] Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2020-2031. This does not appear to be relevant as it only relates to new housing schemes where a design brief is required. Other considerations and planning balance.

[address] is a grade II listed building. It can be seen through trees when looking across the field from the A38 and so the appeal site forms part of its setting. However, the house is partially screened within these viewpoints and the proposal would not affect the most important aspects of its setting within the immediate grounds to the property. Moreover, the development could be laid out and designed so as to prevent any meaningful loss of sight of the house from the road. Therefore, I am satisfied the proposal could be designed so as to preserve the setting to the listed building and to avoid harm to its significance. Acceptability in these regards is a neutral factor in my assessment.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 years’ supply of housing land as required under the terms of the Framework. The evidence indicates that only a 3.14 years’ worth of supply can be identified, which represents a significant shortfall. In such circumstances, paragraph 11 of the Framework is engaged. However, in this instance, the application of the Framework’s policies in respect of areas at risk of flooding provides a strong reason for refusing planning permission. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11 of the Framework does not apply.

Nonetheless, the proposal would make a modest contribution towards the housing stock. Moreover, paragraph 73 of the Framework recognises the important contribution that small sites make to meeting an area’s housing requirements. The proposal does not gain from the great supportive weight as set out under sub-paragraph 73(d) of the Framework as I have found the site is not within a settlement. However, there are nearby bus stops on the A38 that could provide residents of the development with an alternative means of travel to the private car. In these respects, the proposal would promote sustainable travel. The scheme would also create construction employment and residents may support local services in the nearest settlements. The benefits to the proposal overall attract significant weight in support of allowing the appeal, particularly in light of the housing land supply shortfall.

I am referred to a decision made by the Council to allow a scheme for [address]. I have not been provided with the full details of that proposal but from the information before me it would seem the site is not subject to high flood risk. Also, this proposal would not be so obvious from the A38 and so its effects on the landscape would be different to the appeal development. As such, I am not bound to follow the Council’s approach to that proposal and allow this appeal.

The Inspector for appeal decision reference APP/G1630/W/25/3358568 granted planning in principle for up to 2 dwellings on a site within Tewkesbury Borough, despite finding it would be in an unsuitable location when having regard to JCS and LP policies. However, the current appeal scheme is different to this other proposal as I have also found the development would conflict with policies on flood risk and landscape character. Therefore, this previous appeal does not provide an irresistible precedent to be followed in my determination of the current scheme.

The benefits of the proposal would be of sufficient weight to overcome the conflict with the distribution of new development policies as set out in the JCS and the LP. However, the failure to accord with flood risk policies as well as the identified harm to the intrinsic character of the countryside attract considerable weight. Therefore, I find the benefits of the proposal are insufficient to justify granting planning permission contrary to the policies of the JCS and the LP when read as a whole.

For the above reasons, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.