Appeal 6001220

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The consent route for which has 2 stages: the first stage (permission in principle) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second stage (technical details consent) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages. The scope for the consideration of a scheme 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. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

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, with particular regard to the spatial strategy in the development plan and the accessibility of services and facilities.

The appeal site comprises a small farmyard containing agricultural buildings. The site is located outside of the development boundary for [site address] . [name]. of Policy SWDP 2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (adopted

(SWDP) defines such land as open countryside, where development will be strictly controlled. [name]. of Policy SWDP 2 limits development in the open countryside to certain development types. The proposed development does not fall within any of the development types listed. It follows that the proposed development would conflict with the spatial strategy in the development plan.

The existing services and facilities in [site address] are scarce, consisting of a church. The future occupiers of the proposed development would accordingly be required to travel further afield to meet their day-to-day needs.

I have had regard to permission in principle [name]/24/02013/PIP, which related to a grant of permission in principle for the erection of 2 self / custom-build dwellings at [name], [site address] , a short distance from the appeal site. As that site is located with the development boundary of [site address] , conflict with Policy SWDP 2 did not arise, unlike the proposed development the subject of this appeal.

The Officer’s Report for permission in principle [name]/24/02013/PIP referred to a bus stop just over 2km to the south and east of [name]. However, I have not been provided with the details of any bus services, meaning that the degree to which these bus services would assist the future occupiers in accessing services and facilities is unclear. In any event, at this distance the journey from the appeal site to the bus stop would not entail a short walk. Additionally, as [site address] is unlit, journeys to this bus stop would be very unattractive during the hours of darkness and in the winter. Moreover, [site address] in the vicinity of the site lacks cycle paths, further limiting its potential for travel by sustainable modes of transport.

As such, the future occupiers of the proposed development would be likely to use private vehicles to access practically all forms of services and facilities required to meet their daily needs. This includes travel to nearby settlements such as [name], [name], Bishampton, Pinvin, and Pershore. In assessing this issue, I note that paragraph 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides that, amongst other things, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.

The appellant has identified Pershore as the largest settlement within the locality. Pershore is ranked third in the [name] set out at Table 2 of the SWDP, and is noted in Policy SWDP 2 as containing fewer high-level services. It does not offer the same range of services and facilities as higher order settlements, such as Malvern, for example. Therefore, whilst any journeys to Pershore by private vehicle would not be excessively long in duration, it cannot be assumed that Pershore would necessarily meet all of the day-to-day living requirements of the future occupiers of the proposed development.

Furthermore, few details have been provided to illustrate the range of services and facilities presently available at [name], [name], Bishampton, and Pinvin. No details of the train service at Pershore have been provided. Thus, the evidence before me does not demonstrate that longer journeys by private vehicles towards higher order settlements would not be undertaken on a regular basis.

Taking all of the above into account, whilst paragraph 110 of the Framework highlights that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, in this particular case the site’s inability to promote sustainable modes of transport would be acute. For the above-mentioned reasons, permission in principle [name]/24/02013/PIP and the reasoning given in the associated [name] does not alter my findings that the proposed development would conflict with part A. of Policy SWDP 4 of the SWDP which provides that, amongst other things, proposals must demonstrate that the layout of development will minimise demand for travel, and that they offer genuinely sustainable travel choices.

I therefore find that the site is not suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development, with particular regard to the spatial strategy in the development plan and the accessibility of services and facilities. It would conflict with [name]. of Policy SWDP 2 of the SWDP, which seeks to strictly control development in the open countryside, and with part A. of Policy SWDP 4 of the SWDP, summarised above.

Subject to any conditions imposed at technical details consent stage, no concerns have been raised in relation to matters relating to the character and appearance of the area, density levels in the village, access, highway safety, contaminated land, flooding, and drainage. Matters relating to affordable housing would also be considered at technical details consent stage. The lack of harm identified with respect to these matters does not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. However, it does not automatically follow that the policies which are most important for determining the appeal are out-of-date in substance. Neither does the Framework prescribe the weight which should be given to development plan policies. Rather, paragraph 232 of the Framework provides that, amongst other things, due weight should be given to policies, according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The development plan policies relevant to the main issue above are not inconsistent with the Framework. The weight attached to the proposed development’s conflict with these policies is not to be reduced on this ground alone. The relevance of paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is discussed in further detail below. [name] and Planning Balance

The main parties agree that currently the Council can only demonstrate an approximately 1.10 year supply of deliverable housing sites. I have no evidence which indicates otherwise. This is clearly a very significant shortfall. The proposed development would deliver a small-scale scheme of a maximum of 2 dwellings, which could be built-out relatively quickly. This would provide an important but limited positive contribution towards addressing the shortfall.

The proposed development would provide short-term economic benefits arising from the construction phase, and longer-term economic benefits arising from the future occupiers of the proposed development accessing services and facilities in the wider area. However, these benefits would likely not be significant due to the maximum number of dwellings proposed.

Mention has been made of the incorporation of electric vehicle charging points. In this regard, Policy SWDP 4 of the SWDP encourages the use of new vehicle technology. Measures relating to energy efficiency would also be considered at technical details consent stage. The use of electric vehicles cannot be mandated at this time, and at this stage the likely impact of any energy efficiency measures has not been quantified. These matters provide very little support for the proposed development.

The collective benefits of the proposed development, taking account of the Council’s shortfall in housing land supply described above, result in no more than moderate weight in support of the proposed development.

[site address] is listed in the lowest tier of the Hierarchy of Settlements set out at [name] of the SWDP. Such settlements are described in [name] as having no key services and limited or no bus provision. The evidence before me indicates that this remains the case for [site address] . Whilst the site is near to the development boundary, and it is acknowledged that some development is envisaged at [site address] , the inclusion of settlements such as [site address] in the lowest tier of the settlement hierarchy found at Table 2 of the SWDP indicates that their role in providing additional future development is limited. The potential of the site to contribute towards the achievement of sustainable development must be considered in this context.

More importantly, the site’s location close to the development boundary and existing residential development does not alter the fact that the site is in the open countryside for the purposes of planning policy. This area is deemed by the SWDP to be a ‘less sustainable’ location (using the terminology found at paragraph 4 of the [name] for Policy SWDP 2), where development is intended to be strictly controlled.

The proposed development’s conflict with [name]. of Policy SWDP 2, which is an adopted development plan policy, indicates that the proposed development would compromise the ability of the spatial strategy to achieve its objectives. In this regard, I am mindful of the Framework’s requirement that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led. So, the weight to be given to the proposed development’s conflict with [name]. of Policy SWDP 2 is not reduced due to the above-mentioned factors relating to the location of the site.

I have had regard to appeal decision [name]/J1860/W/22/3304685. That appeal decision correctly identified that the justification for the restrictions imposed by Policy SWDP 2 primarily relate to the protection of the character of the countryside, and to ensure development is focused where it would have good accessibility to facilities and services.

At paragraph 13 of that appeal decision, the Inspector found that the occupants of that site would not be entirely dependent on the use of private vehicles, with sustainable transport options available. That site was described as being in easy walking distance of services and with good public transport links. That site’s relationship to facilities and services formed part of the Inspector’s reasoning that modest weight should be given to the conflict with Policy SWDP 2. However, as explained in detail on the main issue above, the proposed development would not promote sustainable transport. Given these marked differences, the weight given by the Inspector to the conflict with Policy SWDP 2 (at paragraph 16 of that appeal decision) is of little relevance to the proposed development before me.

Nonetheless, I accept that the severe shortfall in housing land supply indicates that the spatial strategy in the development plan, which includes the strict restrictions on development imposed by [name]. of Policy SWDP 2, is not effectively meeting its objectives with regards to the provision of housing. In light of this consideration, moderate weight is given to the proposed development’s conflict with Policy SWDP 2.

As explained on the main issue above, the site’s accessibility by sustainable modes of transport to the necessary services and facilities required for day-to-day living is very poor. There would be an almost total reliance on the use of private vehicles by the future occupiers of the proposed development. It has not been demonstrated that such journeys would often be short in duration. Unambiguous conflict has been found with part A. of Policy SWDP 4. Accordingly, the proposed development would not contribute towards [name]. 4. (found at Table 1 of the SWDP), which seeks to allocate most development in locations where there is good access to local services and where transport choice is maximised. Significant negative weight has therefore been given to the proposed development’s conflict with part A. of Policy SWDP 4.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole. Paragraph 12 of the Framework highlights that where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan, permission should not usually be granted. This conflict weighs heavily against the proposed development.

Paragraph 109 e) of the Framework provides that, amongst other things, development proposals should involve identifying and pursuing opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. The proposed development would not promote these opportunities, resulting in conflict with paragraph 110 of the Framework, which provides that, amongst other things, the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of the objectives set out at paragraph 109 of the Framework. For the same reasons, the proposed development would conflict with paragraph 115 a) of the Framework which provides that, amongst other things, in assessing specific applications for development, it should be ensured that sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location.

Hence, the proposed development would conflict with 2 of the key policies for directing development to sustainable locations as set out at footnote 9 of paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework. I therefore consider that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission (subject to technical details consent) would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination. The proposed development would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development, referred to at paragraph 11 of the Framework.

Overall, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole, including part A. of Policy SWDP 1 of the SWDP which provides that, amongst other things, the Local Authority will seek to secure development that improves economic, social and environmental conditions in south Worcestershire. None of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.