Appeal 6001425

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for application for permission in principle for residential development of four to nine dwellings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01319/PIP.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 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 (‘[name]) 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 at this stage is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if Permission in Principle is granted.

Nevertheless, the Council’s decision notice notes that Permission in Principle was refused due to its location within the open countryside and its effect upon the character and appearance of the area, with specific reference made to its proposed quantum and back land location. I have determined the appeal accordingly, in having regard to its location, proposed land use and development amount.

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, in consideration of the matters raised by the Council.

Policy SP1 of the Newark and [name] 2019 (CS) identifies Halam as part of the ‘[name] in Newark and Sherwood’ settlement category. Development proposals in such locations must therefore be assessed against Policy SP3 of the CS. Policy SP3 classifies these areas as rural and states that, outside of principal villages, new development will only be supported where it satisfies specific criteria. This criterion relates to location, scale, need, impact and character.

The appeal site would be situated in an open field immediately adjacent to existing housing within Halam and would represent a small incursion beyond the built extents of it. However, despite this small incursion, it would nonetheless be situated within the open countryside and would fall just beyond the main built-up area of the village. As a result, the proposal fails to meet a fundamental requirement of Policy SP3 of the CS. On the basis that all five criteria of Policy SP3 of the CS need to be met, I have not considered the other criteria of Policy SP3 further with regard to this main issue.

Policy DM8 of the Newark and [name] and Development Management Development Plan Document 2013 (DPD) confirms that development within the open countryside is subject to strict control and limited to specific forms of development. Point 3 addresses proposals for new and replacement dwellings within the open countryside, stating that planning permission will only be granted where such dwellings are of exceptional quality or are of an innovative design that demonstrates the highest architectural standards, significantly enhances the immediate setting, and is sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area. Furthermore, Policy DM5 is concerned with design. It notes that all proposals shall be assessed following a set criterion.

This appeal concerns a Permission in Principle application. The subsequent [name] stage is the point at which detailed design information must be provided. As such, an assessment of whether the proposal meets the exceptional design requirements of Policy DM8, or the requirements of Policy DM5 of the DPD cannot be sufficiently undertaken at this stage.

To conclude, the proposed development, located in this location, would conflict with Policy SP3 of the CS. This policy is concerned with proposals for new development within rural areas, subject to their location, amongst other matters.

The proposed land use is for residential purposes which is compatible with the mainly residential surroundings. Vehicles pass existing properties regularly due to the location of many of these properties adjacent to [address]. As such, any existing properties in the immediate vicinity are already affected by general noise and disturbance. The proposed land use for residential development is acceptable in principle.

As such, at this stage, the land use of the proposed development would be compatible with its surroundings and would therefore accord with Policy DM5 of the DPD. This policy requires that development proposals should have regard to their impact on the amenity of surrounding land uses, amongst other things.

At this permission in principle stage, the detailed appearance of the proposed development has not been provided ,as such matters are reserved for consideration at the [name] stage. In the absence of this information, the full impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area cannot be comprehensively assessed. Notwithstanding this, the Council has raised specific concerns regarding the quantum of development within a back land location, particularly in relation to the established settlement pattern of Halam.

The village of Halam is primarily focused on the crossroads formed by [address], The Turnpike, [address] and [address]. A substantial concentration of built form extends along each of these routes, particularly [address], which would serve as the principal access route to the proposed development. However, development within the village is not confined just to these core roads.

During my site visit, I observed several streets accommodating what can reasonably be described as back land or secondary‐lane development away from these principal roads in a variety of forms. These include properties on [name], [name], [address], land associated with [address], [address], and the rather aptly named [address]. Collectively, these streets demonstrate to me that built form is found beyond the core of Halam, where a varied pattern and quantum of development, contributes to the wider back land settlement structure of it.

I am also cognisant of the overall size of the appeal site and the quantum range of dwellings proposed. When these two matters are considered against the established back land areas of Halam, I am not convinced that the presence of between four to nine dwellings in this location would appear unusual, alien or disproportionate to Halam.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would not give rise to an unacceptable impact on the character or appearance of Halam at this application stage, having regard to its location, proposed land use, and the scale of development. As is relevant at this stage of a Permission in Principle application, the proposal would therefore accord with Policy DM5 of the DPD, which requires new development to be assessed against a range of criteria relating to the design and form of development.

Comments were submitted by interested parties during both the application and appeal stages. I acknowledge the concerns raised by those parties and by the Council regarding the potential implications of the appeal site’s location, particularly in relation to highway safety and traffic generation. Although the evidence before me indicates that the site lies within [name] 1, an area of low surface‐water flood risk, further concerns have been expressed regarding flood risk and drainage. In addition, while the level of detail provided is limited, which is consistent with this type of application, it has been suggested that the proposal would nevertheless result in harm to the surrounding landscape character, biodiversity, would adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, and fail to deliver any affordable housing.

The limited information submitted with the appeal is consistent with the purpose of this stage of the Permission in Principle process, which is confined to establishing whether the proposed location, land use and amount of development are acceptable in principle. Detailed matters are more appropriately addressed at the [name] stage. The granting of Permission in Principle does not guarantee that the subsequent technical details will reach the same conclusion, as planning permission is only secured once both stages have been approved. [name] acknowledge that the information provided at this stage is limited in demonstrating that these matters would be acceptable, such details would, in any event, be expected to come forward as part of the next stage of the process.

It has been further argued that Halam lacks local facilities and would therefore necessitate the use of private vehicles by future occupants of the proposed development. The evidence before me indicates that, while provision is limited, some services are available within Halam itself. More decisively, I note the view given in the Council’s committee report. It noted that, owing to the settlement’s connections to larger service‐centre towns and principal villages, an appropriate range of services are accessible within a reasonable distance. During my site visit, I noted the distance of the appeal site to Southwell, which is a short journey away. I therefore have no clear basis on which to disagree with the assessment given in the Council’s committee report on this matter.

A response from an interested party has discussed the outcome of a nearby appeal decision. The appeal decision itself has not been provided for my assessment and therefore, I cannot make meaningful comparisons between this appeal and the one cited. However, it is noted that the appeal raised related to a two-bedroom retirement bungalow. Whilst this appeal does indeed relate to housing, the proposed development is considerably different to that cited appeal in terms of its proposed number of dwellings. For these reasons, I cannot ascertain the relevance of this cited appeal in my decision.

The impact of the development on the property market, as well as the loss of a private view, are not material planning considerations. Each application must be assessed on its own merits, and the allowance of this appeal would not, in itself, establish a precedent. It has been alleged that the proposed development would result in structural damage to nearby properties and services. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to support this claim. In any event, should such issues arise, they would constitute a private matter between the parties concerned.

Representations were made to the effect that the rights of adjoining occupiers under Article 8 as set out in the [name] on Human Rights as incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998, would be violated if the appeal were allowed. An application made at this stage of the Permission in Principle stage is limited to location, proposed land use and development amount. Therefore, the technical detail as to whether the proposed development would result in harm to the living conditions of a neighbouring property cannot be concluded at this stage. Therefore, until these technical details are before a decision maker, I am satisfied that in allowing this appeal, it would not unacceptably interfere with a nearby occupiers right to a private and family life and home.

The Council have noted that its current housing land supply position is 3.43 years. As such, paragraph 11 of the Framework states that development plan policies which are most important for determining the application should be considered out of date. The tilted balance requires that where the policies most important for determining the application are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As there are no relevant policies protecting areas or assets of particular importance in this case, the requirements of paragraph 11di)ii of the Framework therefore apply.

I have found conflict with Policy SP3 of the CS as I have found that the appeal site location would be within the open countryside. I therefore conclude that there is conflict with the development plan as a whole. With regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), Policy SP3 is in general conformity with the aims of the Framework, which seeks to actively manage patterns of growth to appropriate locations.

I am mindful that until the [name] stage of the application is granted to achieve a planning permission, any number of houses at this stage is incapable of making a meaningful contribution towards a supply shortfall as much work must be done at the next application stage and the quantum of development is not certain. However, the Framework refers to boosting the supply of housing. It also notes that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirements of an area. Four to nine additional units would make a small contribution, but given the housing land supply position around Newark and Sherwood, it would nevertheless be a welcomed increase to the supply of housing where there is a clear need for such development. The need for housing is a factor of considerable weight in my decision.

The proposal would also provide economic benefits during the construction period through the procurement of materials and the generation of labour requirements. The future occupiers would also provide economic benefits to the nearby area once the development would be complete through their use of shops and services around Halam and the wider locality in towns such as Southwell, Farnsfield or Newark. These matters attract limited yet additional positive weight.

The proposed development would be in an open countryside location. However, in my assessment of this main issue, I note that this incursion beyond the extents of Halam would be small. As such, I consider that when this matter is considered against the benefits of the proposal, the harm of the appeal site location would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. The proposal would provide four to nine dwellings to what is a notably low supply in Newark and Sherwood.

Therefore, in this instance, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is a consideration of such materiality that it indicates that permission should be granted other than in strict accordance with the development plan.

The PPG indicates that it is not possible to impose conditions as the terms of any permission in principle must only include the site location, type of development and amount. Without having to specify such by way of a condition, the default duration of permission in principle is 3 years, with any [name] application to be determined during this period.

It is requested by interested parties that a brick wall with specific heights is conditioned to be constructed to the rear boundary of neighbouring properties. As noted in the PPG, it is not possible to impose conditions at this stage.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.