Appeal 6001439

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the erection of up to 4 no. dwellings at [site address] , Cliddesden, Easting 462400 Northing 149100 in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01544/PIP.

The site address in the banner heading above is taken directly from the original planning application form.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is a two-stage process and alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing. The scope of the first stage (or ‘permission in principle’), is to establish whether a site is suitable in principle for development and is limited to consideration of the location, land use and amount of development. The second stage (‘technical details consent’) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first stage.

In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for the erection of a minimum of one and maximum of four dwellings at the appeal site. Indicative drawings of the development layout, as well as access and landscaping arrangements have been provided; I have taken these to only be illustrative as to how development at the site could take place.

During the appeal the Council withdrew its second reason for refusal, which related to the location of the site and its access to facilities, services and sustainable modes of transport.

The Basingstoke and Deane Draft Local Plan remains at an early stage of preparation. It therefore attracts very limited weight in my determination of the appeal.

In light of the above, the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with specific regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development.

The appeal site is part of a wider agricultural field at the edge of Cliddesden, near a key gateway to the village. The site forms part of a landscape buffer between the settlement and the M3, as well as Basingstoke. It is positioned adjacent to existing residential built form. The site is broadly rectangular and comprises a largely open field, with its southern boundary undefined and linking directly to the wider open countryside beyond. Its remaining boundaries are predominantly defined by mature vegetation and, in places, a raised bank, creating a notable sense of enclosure, particularly from public vantage points. Notwithstanding this, the field remains partially visible through gaps in the boundary vegetation and is clearly perceptible from the site entrance on the adjacent main road.

Cliddesden has a verdant, semi-rural character. It is largely defined by a concentration of development around the village centre, where two principal road corridors intersect. Residential development extends linearly along these routes towards the settlement edges, creating a gentle transition from the built form to the surrounding countryside. Due to its open and rural qualities, the field contributes positively to the village’s setting by reinforcing this graduated transition.

Full details of the scale and design of the final development, including precise landscaping proposals, are not before me. Much would therefore depend on the exact design of any scheme that may come forward at technical design stage. However, the indicative layout and landscaping arrangements demonstrate the potential for a low-density scheme that broadly reflects the established pattern and character of neighbouring development, while incorporating substantial landscaping.

The introduction of new dwellings, associated infrastructure, and domestic paraphernalia would inevitably result in some degree of urbanisation to this currently open agricultural land—an effect typical of development at rural settlement edges. Nonetheless, the evidence before me indicates that a sensitively designed proposal could assimilate well with the adjacent residential development. The indicative layout also shows the potential to retain a significant extent of open space and bolster existing vegetation, thereby preserving an appropriate landscaped buffer at the village edge.

Accordingly, I find it feasible that a proposal could come forward which integrates effectively with the adjoining built form, avoids significant encroachment into the countryside, maintains a clear separation from Basingstoke, and preserves the semi-rural character of the settlement.

Views of the proposed development are likely to be localised, partial, and transient in nature. This is due to a combination of the surrounding topography, vegetation, existing built form, and the availability of public vantage points. Where visible, the proposal would largely appear alongside or against a backdrop of existing dwellings, such that it would not represent an intrusive feature. Furthermore, the site does not lie within the defined Local Gap, or any important viewpoints identified in the Cliddesden Neighbourhood Plan 2022–2039 (Made 2024), nor is it part of the ‘Green Fingers’ that are highlighted as valuable visible areas of open space within the Cliddesden Village Design Statement (2004).

Bringing the above together, I consider that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, with specific regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development. Accordingly, the appeal scheme complies with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 (adopted 2016) (the Local Plan), as well as Policies DD1, DD2, DD3 and ENV3 of the Neighbourhood Plan. These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure the delivery of high-quality development that is sympathetic to its surroundings.

The appeal site lies adjacent to, but outside, the defined settlement boundary for Cliddesden and is therefore classified as open countryside under the adopted Local Plan. Local Plan Policy SS5 requires opportunities to be identified for the delivery of at least 10 homes within and adjacent to the Cliddesden settlement boundary. The evidence before me indicates that this requirement has not yet been met within the Local Plan period. Furthermore, the Neighbourhood Plan does not allocate housing sites, although Policy HD1 supports the approach set out in Local Plan Policy SS5.

Local Plan Policy SS6, meanwhile, identifies a limited set of exceptions whereby new housing development in the countryside would be permissible. Of relevance to the appeal proposal is criterion (e) of Policy SS6, that permits small scale residential proposals (up to four dwellings), of a scale and type to meet a locally agreed need, subject to further design considerations.

[name] identified housing need, the scale of the proposal, its close relationship to existing built form, and my conclusions above regarding the character and appearance of the area, I am satisfied that the development would accord with the exception provided under Local Plan Policy SS6(e). Notwithstanding, that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five -year housing land supply, I do not consider the proposal to be contrary to its adopted spatial strategy for development.

Based on my observations and the evidence before me, including the findings of the previous Inspector1, I consider the appeal site to be reasonably well connected to Basingstoke and the range of services and facilities available there.

Concerns have been raised by interested parties regarding matters such as highway safety, infrastructure capacity, biodiversity impacts, neighbouring living conditions, and various matters associated with the potential future design of the proposal. However, such matters fall outside the scope of consideration at the permission-in-principle stage. These issues must instead be addressed at the technical details consent stage, and there can be no guarantee that approval of technical details would automatically follow the grant of permission in principle. Both stages must be approved for planning permission to be secured. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/W/23/3321532

Given the separation distances involved, the intervening built form, the absence of any evident historic associations with the site, and my findings above, I am satisfied that the proposal would not, in principle, result in harm to the setting or significance of any designated heritage assets.

A previous proposal for permission in principle on this site was dismissed at appeal2 due to its effect on the character and appearance of the area. However, that scheme involved up to nine dwellings, and its impacts, including its ability to integrate with the settlement edge, would have materially differed from the proposal now before me.

I have also been provided with very limited details of other nearby housing schemes that have been refused planning permission. Based on the information available, those proposals were for significantly larger developments on different sites, and therefore their context is not directly comparable to the appeal scheme.

The proposal would result in the loss of a small area of agricultural land which has been classified by Natural England as Grade 3 (‘Good to Moderate’). Given the limited scale of the site, I do not consider this loss to be significant, and it would be suitably offset by the socio-economic benefits associated with the delivery of new homes.

The proposal would not establish a precedent for further development, as any subsequent applications in the surrounding area would need to be considered on their own individual planning merits.

For the reasons outlined above, I find the proposal to accord with the adopted development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore allowed.

The PPG makes it clear that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle, whose terms may only include the site location, type, and amount of development.