Appeal 6001269

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 1 no. self-build residential dwelling (Use Class C3) and associated infrastructure, at [site address] and [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01147/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I have taken the description of the proposal from the application form in my formal decision above, removing words that do not relate to an act of development.

The appeal proposal would be situated on the location of an existing lambing shed which has prior approval consent1 under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (hereafter referred to as the GPDO), for a change of use from an agricultural building, to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of Schedule 1 to the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended). The appellant considers this to represent a fallback position. I shall examine this further later in my decision.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and • Whether the location is suitable for residential development having regard to the spatial strategy in the development plan. 1 24/00825/ADCOU

The appeal site consists of a U-shaped area of land which is part of a farmstead known as Greenacres. The site is located in the bottom of a wider valley, adjacent to [site address] , from which it takes its vehicular access. The site’s postal address relates to the village of Wellow. However, the main portion of the village lies around 1km to the north north-east of the site, where [site address] joins the [address] in the village.

The farmstead, and therefore the appeal site, lies outside the defined boundary of the village and is therefore in the open countryside. It is also within the Bristol and Bath Green Belt, where development is controlled by Policies CP8 and GB1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan – [name] and Placemaking Plan (2023) (the Local Plan). Policy CP8 defines that the openness of the Green Belt will be protected in accordance with national planning policy, whilst Policy GB1 requires development not to prejudice but seek to enhance the visual amenities of the Green Belt.

The Framework states that 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. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Certain forms of development are, however, not inappropriate and are listed as specific exceptions.

The primary issue to determine is whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out exceptions to inappropriate development. The proposal is not within the defined boundary for infilling in villages (154e), is not affordable housing for local community needs (154f), and is not development on previously developed land (154g), as the Framework excludes land that is or was agricultural land from the definition of previously developed land. The proposal would also not comply with any of the other exceptions identified in paragraph 154.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where it utilises grey belt land subject to four criteria (a to d). Annex 2 of the Framework defines grey belt as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes a), b), or d) in Paragraph 143 of the Framework.

Paragraph 143 - Purpose a) is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) notes2 that villages should not be considered large built-up areas. Accordingly, the appeal proposal would not strongly contribute to the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas as defined in paragraph 143(a). Similarly, owing to the site’s location, it would prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another as required by paragraph 143(b). As the site is not located within a conservation area or historic town, it would also not strongly contribute to the purpose defined in paragraph 143(d). 2 Paragraph: 005 [name]: 64-005-20250225

I therefore find that the appeal site, as other land that does not strongly contribute to any of purposes a), b), or d) outlined in Paragraph 143 of the Framework, would represent Grey Belt land for the purposes of this appeal.

Due to the site’s characteristics, it’s location and the distance from the nearest neighbouring villages, the proposed development would not significantly encroach into the countryside. I find it would, therefore, not fundamentally affect the ability of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan, from serving all five of the Green Belt purposes. Therefore, as grey belt land would be utilised, and the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt would not be fundamentally undermined, the proposal would satisfy paragraph 155 a) of the Framework.

The proposal is for a two-bedroom dwelling. The Council have acknowledged that they cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, as required by the Framework. There is, therefore, a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. The proposals would therefore accord with criterion b) of paragraph 155.

Turning to criterion c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework, the Council considers the proposed development is not in a sustainable location. However, on all other highways matters, the Council assessed the proposal as meeting the requirements of Policy ST7 of the Local Plan, the Transport and Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and part 9 of the Framework.

Paragraph 155 c) of the Framework states that sustainability of the location of development should be considered with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. Paragraph 110 notes significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable. As a single dwelling, I find the appeal proposal would not represent significant development. Paragraph 110 goes on to state that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making.

The appeal site is located around 1km from the high street of Wellow, which has a primary school, church, a village shop and pub facilities. Evidence is before me which identifies that a community run bus service is available within the village. Whilst this may not have the regularity of a public bus service, it would provide future occupants with access to a sustainable form of transport. Further, [site address] , from which the appeal site takes its access, is part of National Cycle Route 24, which runs to Wellow and beyond, connecting with National Cycling Routes 4 and 244, providing access to Bath to the north and Bradford-on-Avon to the east.

Whilst the Council consider [site address] to be narrow, unlit and with no footpath and therefore raise safety concerns, its designation as part of National Cycle Route 24 would run counter to this. I therefore find it would provide a viable sustainable connection for cycle access between the appeal site and Wellow.

At my visit I also observed that 50m south-east of the site is the parking area for the [name]. Whilst the footbridge over [name] was in the process of replacement, it was evident that the public footpath that provides access to the long barrow, goes on to connect with [address] close to its junction with [address], on the southern edge of Wellow village. It would therefore be possible to reach Wellow village by pedestrian means on public footpaths, independently of [site address] . However, I do acknowledge that the distance from Wellow is at the very limit of what might be considered sustainable for pedestrian access.

Paragraph 115 states that in assessing specific applications for development, and therefore appeals, four criteria should be considered. Having examined these criteria, I find that the appeal proposal would comply with criteria b), c) and d). With regards to criterion a), having regard to the limited extent of the proposal, the opportunity to maximise or prioritise sustainable transport is more limited by its rural setting, as recognised by paragraph 110 of the Framework, which should be taken into account in decision making.

Having examined the above, I find that, acknowledging as outlined in paragraph 110 of the Framework, that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary within rural areas, the availability of the community bus service, coupled to the accessibility via part of National Cycle Route 24, and the presence of a separate public footpath to Wellow, leads me to conclude that the proposal would, on balance, satisfy criterion c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework. As the proposal is not major development, the requirement of criterion d) to satisfy the ‘[name] is not applicable. I therefore find the proposed development would satisfy all the relevant criteria of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Therefore, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework. It follows therefore, that it would also accord with Polices CP8 and GB1 of the Local Plan, which require, among other things, the openness of the Green Belt to be protected in accordance with national planning policy.

For the avoidance of doubt, the exception at paragraph 155 does not expressly state a need to assess the development’s effect on the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, in line with footnote 55 of the Framework, the proposal should not be regarded as being harmful to openness. Further, as I have concluded that the proposal would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, I do not need to examine other considerations and whether these amount to very special circumstances.

In spatial policy terms, Policy DW1 of the Local Plan directs development to the hierarchy of cities, towns and villages within the area, with residential development focused on Bath, Keynsham and the Somer Valley. Residential development in villages and other rural areas, should be located at settlements with a good range of local facilities and with good access to public transport.

Where development proposals are located within villages in the Green Belt, Policy GB2 of the Local Plan, controls development to limited infilling within the defined infill boundary shown on the [name], subject to meeting the definition of infill development identified within Policy GB2. There is an exception if the development falls under one of the exceptions to inappropriate development listed within the Framework. However, as the appeal site lies outside the defined infilling boundary for Wellow, it is not supported by Policy GB2.

For the above reasons, I find the appeal proposal would be contrary to Policies DW1 and GB2 of the Local Plan and would therefore conflict with the development plan.

It is stated that the purpose of the proposal, as with the prior approval consent, is to allow the appellant to live close to their aging parents, who reside in the main farmstead dwelling. The appellant considers that the principle of residential development on the site is established by the extant prior approval consent. They also contend that the proposal would be no less of a sustainable location than that already consented, which they state they will enact as their fallback, should the appeal be dismissed.

With regards to the fallback position, caselaw3 has established that fallback is a material consideration to be taken account of, within the determination of an application and therefore, an appeal. With regards to further caselaw 4, I acknowledge more than a merely theoretical prospect of the fallback scheme occurring, owing to the need of the appellant to care for aging parents. This is sufficient to make the position a material consideration in this appeal. It is, therefore, necessary for me to examine the fallback scheme in comparison to the appeal proposal and assess the weight that it should be given in the determination of this appeal.

Whilst the full details of the fallback prior approval consent are not before me, the crux of the matter is the difference in the size of the appeal proposal relative to the prior approval, which utilises the existing [name]. The proposal would occupy a larger footprint than the existing building, which would result in a higher ridge level, and the potential for the proposed development to be more prominent in the surrounding Green Belt landscape. However, the topography of the surrounding landscape means that views of the development from the west would be from a higher vantage point, looking down on the development, against the backdrop of belts of evergreen and deciduous woodland and rising ground on the other side of the valley.

Similarly, views from [site address] would be restricted by the stone boundary wall, dense mature hedges interspersed with evergreen trees and the high timber close boarded fence which runs behind it. Any views in gaps between this boundary, or from the public footpath to the long barrow further east, would be read against the rising ground to the west of the appeal site and its belts of mature woodland. The proposal would therefore not be read as prominent within the landscape. It would also be seen within the grouping of other buildings which make up the farmstead.

The fall-back approval would retain an existing building, would be smaller in mass, with parking for a single car, and with a smaller residential curtilage. The appeal proposal would be a larger mass, with parking for two vehicles and with a larger residential curtilage. It would also utilise similar materials and overall form as the fall-back approval scheme. However, as I have found the appeal proposal not to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, in line with footnote 55 of the Framework, the proposal should not be regarded as being harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. 3 Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council & others (2017) [name] 1314 4 Schneck v SSHCLG & [name] [2022] EWHC 3335 (Admin)

Locationally, the fall-back approval would be occupied by the appellant, who would have the same relationship to the nearby village of Wellow and its facilities, and with the same level of pedestrian, cycle and public transport access as the appeal proposal. I have already found that on balance, the location would be sustainable, having regard to paragraph 110 and 115 of the Framework. Accordingly, whilst the fall-back approval would be a material consideration, I afford it only moderate weight in my determination of the appeal.

The existing lambing shed, which would be demolished to provide the site for the appeal proposal, has been the subject of a Bat and Breeding Bird Assessment Survey carried out for the previous prior approval consent. This survey report, which has also been submitted for this application, found evidence of use of the lambing shed for day roosts by lesser horseshoe and common pipistrelle bats, which are [name] under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations).

The previous prior approval consent proposed a detached bespoke roost building. The proposal includes similar provision, located at a distance to the proposed dwelling, adjacent to an existing hedge, which provides a commuting corridor.

The Council considers the proposal to provide adequate mitigation of the effects of development on the protected species, and to meet the three tests of the Habitats Regulations, subject to the detail, provision and use of the building being appropriately secured by planning condition, and the execution of a [name] (EPS) License. Having examined the evidence, I have little reason to find otherwise.

The application is for the development of a self-build/custom-build dwelling. Accordingly, it benefits from an exemption to the statutory requirements of the Environment Act (2021) (the EA), to deliver a mandatory biodiversity net gain of at least 10%. However, it is essential that the self-build/custom-build form of development is secured. The appellant has completed a deed of [name] under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, dated 2 April 2026, which includes an obligation for a financial contribution to the Council to reimburse it for its costs in preparing and monitoring the agreement.

The appellant’s signed and dated deed of unilateral undertaking also defines the development as self-build and legally binds the appellant to construct and occupy the property as a self-build dwelling. I have considered this in light of the statutory tests contained in Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010. I am satisfied that the obligation is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The information before me indicates the parties have agreed to the identified figures. I have little basis to find otherwise. Hence, on that basis this obligation is fairly and reasonably related to the development proposed and passes the statutory tests of paragraph 58 of the Framework in this regard.

The council have confirmed their current 5 [name] (5YHLS) figure as 2.5 years. This is significantly below the 5-years supply of housing land required by the Framework. Therefore, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged for decision making purposes. As the site is within the Green Belt, the policies within paragraph 11(d)(i) and Footnote 7 of the Framework are of relevance. However, the proposal would utilise grey belt land and would accord with the provision of paragraph 155 of the Framework. I have therefore found the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such, it would not provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development.

Accordingly, paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework is engaged, which indicates that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would provide additional housing in a sustainable location which would support the government’s objective of boosting the supply of homes. Whilst the proposal is only for one two-bedroom dwelling, in the context of the Council’s serious housing land supply deficit, this would make a modest but important contribution towards overall housing supply. The proposal is also for a self-build dwelling, which would also assist the Council in supply, relative to their statutory duty to provide sufficient self-build plots under the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. I therefore attach significant weight to both these matters.

The proposal would provide local economic benefit, both in the construction phase and in the longer term with future occupiers supporting local businesses and contributing to Local Authority rates for services within the area. The new dwelling would be self-build and would be energy efficient. Cumulatively, these are benefits that attract moderate weight.

The appellant has stated the reason for pursuing the application is to support their aging parents who reside in the main farmstead dwelling, noting that the appeal proposal would allow them to care for their parents’ developing needs as they age, whilst providing accommodation for their own family in close proximity. I have therefore given due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty for persons with protected characteristics under s149 of the Equality Act 2010. The appeal proposal would provide additional, individual accommodation in proximity to the main dwelling, which would assist the appellant in meeting the long-term care needs of their parents, in a sustainable manner. On that basis, I attribute moderate weight to this matter and am satisfied that allowing the appeal would be a proportionate response.

I have found that harm would arise from conflict with the spatial strategy in the development plan. However, owing to the Council’s serious deficit of 5-year housing land supply, the weight given to this conflict is significantly reduced.

Consequently, I conclude that the adverse impacts of the proposal, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, which is a material consideration that weighs heavily in favour of allowing the appeal.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council and the comments provided by the appellant. Where necessary I have amended the wording, in the interests of precision and clarity, and in order to comply with the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework. I have also added a condition for the submission and approval of materials to be used in the external envelope of the proposed buildings in the interest of visual amenity.

In addition to the standard time limit for implementation, in the interests of certainty, I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans. Conditions are necessary to secure approval of appropriate habitat provision for [name], and to demonstrate compliance with the approved details.

Conditions are also necessary to ensure compliance with the Council’s sustainable construction policies, for rainwater collection and for water consumption efficiency.

A condition is necessary to control the use of the bat roost building for purposes solely related to the preservation of protected species, and to control the materials used in the external envelope of the proposal. A condition is also necessary to control the provision and use of external lighting in the interest of limiting impact on the habitats of protected species.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan, but material considerations, including policies in the Framework, would justify determining other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.