Appeal 6001429

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for a phased development of 3 -4 self build dwellings at [site address] , Tewkesbury, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00349/PIP.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The 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 2 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 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if permission in principle is granted. The Council’s objections relate to the location and character and appearance. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

As such, 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 specific reference to the character and appearance of the surroundings, including with regard to its landscape setting.

The appeal site consists of part of a wider field located off the highway that runs through the settlement of Teddington. This settlement is classified as an "other rural settlement" within the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan 2011-2031 (2022) (TBLP).

TBLP Policy RES4 seeks to support the vitality of rural communities and the continued availability of services and facilities in the rural areas, and sets out that very small-scale residential development will be acceptable in principle within and adjacent to the built-up area of other rural settlements. Given the continued separation distances, the site would not result in the coalescence of settlements, and the site is not located within the Green Belt. The other criteria of this policy are: a) it is of a scale that is proportionate to the size and function of the settlement and maintains or enhances sustainable patterns of development; b) it does not have an adverse cumulative impact on the settlement having regard to other developments permitted during the plan period; as a general indication no more than 5% growth will be allowed; c) it complements the form of the settlement and is well related to existing buildings within the settlement; d) the site of the proposed development is not of significant amenity value or makes a significant contribution to the character and setting of the settlement in its undeveloped state;

The appeal site is located on the edge of the settlement and currently consist of an undeveloped field, adjacent to the built-up area of Teddington, which extends in a mostly linear fashion along the highway. The built-up area of Teddington visually begins south east, and there sits one dwelling further along the highway on the opposite side of the road, in addition to another dwelling currently under construction.

Due to the current size of Teddington, the individual proposal would be of a general scale proportionate to the size of the settlement. Whilst the services and facilities of Teddington are limited, and the shop, restaurant and public house on the A435 would involve an unsafe walk or cycle journey along this road, there is a bus stop within Teddington at the village hall which provides access further afield towards the larger settlements of Cheltenham and Tewksbury. As the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) indicates that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, I am satisfied that the proposal would also maintain a sustainable pattern of development in this regard. There is therefore no conflict with criterion a) above.

Given the width of the appeal site, a suitable layout of a maximum of four dwellings could be achieved to complement the linear form of development, without appearing unacceptably dense in this location at the edge of the village. It would complement the form of the settlement and be a natural extension to an existing pattern of development. It would therefore be well related to existing buildings within the settlement, in accordance with criterion c).

The undeveloped appeal site marks the transition between the wider open countryside and the built form of Teddington. However, it is sited directly next to the development on its side of the highway, and, as set out above, there would also be dwellings, albeit sporadic, on the other side of the road. The appeal site is seen in this context, with development on two sides. The appeal site is not therefore, as I have found below, of significant amenity value nor makes a significant contribution to the character and setting of the settlement in its undeveloped state. The development would comply with criterion d). There would also therefore, as set out below, be no conflict with the general protection of character goals of Policy SD4 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] 2011-2031 (December 2017) (JCS) and TBLP Policy RES5.

There is however no dispute between the parties that the number of consented residential schemes during the plan period within or adjacent to Teddington is at present very near the 5% growth limit, and that the proposed 3-4 dwellings would breach this general guide level. This may lead to, as set out in the supporting text of the policy, cumulative harm to the scale, function and accessibility of the settlement.

As such, whilst complying with all other criteria, the proposal would not comply with criterion b) of TBLP Policy RES4, and conflict therefore with the policy as a whole. Consequently, the proposal would also conflict with Policy RES3 of the Borough Plan. This accepts new residential development outside defined settlement boundaries where it meets certain criteria. As the proposal would not accord with Policy RES4, none of the relevant Policy RES3 criteria would be met.

The proposal also does not meet any of the criteria for development set out in JCS Policy SP10. As the proposal would conflict with Policy SD10, it would also not satisfy JCS Policy SP2 which sets out how new housing development will be distributed.

In conclusion, the principle of housing in this location would be contrary to the development strategy for the area and would not be suitable for residential development, having regard to its location. For the reasons given, the proposal would conflict with [name] RES3 and RES4 and [name] SP2 and JCS Policy SD10.

As set out above, the appeal site constitutes part of a relatively small self-contained flat field surrounded by thick hedgerow, including facing the highway. The site is seen however in the context of the neighbouring road fronting dwellings and built form of Teddington, in addition to the two dwellings on the opposite side of the road. The wider landscape is made up of wide open rolling countryside. The site does not exhibit these qualities.

The appeal site is within the Special Landscape Area (SLA), and as such it is recognised as high quality countryside of local significance. Nevertheless, this well screened particular parcel, immediately next to the settlement, with some development opposite, does not contribute meaningfully to the significance of the wider SLA and its visual qualities.

Whilst the development would extend the linear road facing dwellings on its side of the road into undeveloped land and would be visible from the highway and a public right of way, it would be read as a natural and logical extension of the existing pattern of development. It could be designed to maintain a suitable transition between existing built development and the wider surrounding countryside and therefore the wider generally open undeveloped verdant entrance to the settlement when travelling from the A435 would be retained.

As such, the development would not appear as an incongruous extension of built form into the open countryside. Together with appropriate landscaping, the proposal could be designed to deliver a scheme appropriate to the site’s location within a Special Landscape Area, maintaining its verdant character and contribution to the wider setting.

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including with regard to its landscape setting. It would therefore accord with [name] SPD4, SD6 and SPD10 which seek to ensure developments respond to context, character and sense of place, and protect landscape character. It would also accord with the respecting of the existing character and appearance of the surrounding area goals of [name] RES3, RES4 and RES5.

The proposal would result in 3-4 additional units of accommodation which would contribute to the Government’s broader objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Given the location of the site, it has good access to services and facilities. The development would make efficient use of the site, as supported by the Framework. The proposal would also result in a short-term economic benefits arising from the construction process. Economic and social benefits are also likely to arise from the occupation of the new dwellings. However, given the quantum of development in this case, such benefits would be modest.

The proposal would conflict with the housing strategy in the development plan. Policies RES3 and RES4 of the Borough Plan and policies SP2 and SD10 in the JCS are broadly consistent with the Framework where it states that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth. Given the current significant shortfall, the housing strategy policies are not currently providing sufficient housing. As such I give the conflict with these policies minor weight. Nevertheless, the scheme would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council confirms that they are unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and put the current figure at 3.14 years supply. The presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is therefore engaged.

The proposal would align with the Framework where it seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing, particularly in locations with good access to services and facilities and acknowledges that small-scale developments can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement and be built out quickly. Whilst the scale of the proposal is limited, given the considerable scale of the shortfall identified, this attracts modest weight.

The economic and social benefits from the build and occupation of the dwelling as well as support for local services, facilities and the community, including those in other villages would be limited given the size of the development, and their weight in favour of the scheme is modest.

The proposal would conflict with the Framework where it seeks to actively manage patterns of growth. However, for the reasons set out above, I give this conflict minor weight.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications for planning permission, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal benefits from the presumption of sustainable development as outlined in Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework. In this instance, the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

On the basis of the individual merits of the scheme, the material considerations indicate that planning permission should be granted notwithstanding the conflict with the development plan.

Detailed design and siting are matters for consideration at technical details consent stage. As such, consideration of the effect on matters such as general landscaping and biodiversity, in addition to the effect on the public right of way is also a matter for this stage.

PPG1 indicates that it is not possible to impose conditions as the terms of any permission in principle must only include site location, type of development and amount.

I conclude that, for the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.