Appeal 6001523

The appeal is dismissed.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that permission in principle 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 stage (technical details consent) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. Planning permission does not exist unless both the permission in principle and the technical details consent are approved. 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 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 particular regard to its location in relation to: • Whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the development plan policy, including where appropriate, the effect on openness; and • If the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. Paragraph 142 of the Framework states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The five purposes of Green Belts are listed in paragraph 143. The Framework goes on to state that ‘inappropriate development’ is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the exceptions listed in paragraphs 154 and 155 applies.

The appellant considers the site is grey belt land and hence not inappropriate development when judged against the criteria in paragraph 155. The Framework Glossary provides the definition of ‘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. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.”

Policy 3 of the Greater Nottingham Broxtowe Borough, Gedling Borough, Nottingham City Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 Local Plan 2014 (ACS) seeks to protect the Green Belt. This policy predates the latest version of the Framework, which introduced the concept of grey belt.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework refers to the concept of grey belt and states that the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate if it meets all its criteria a - d. There is no dispute between the appellant and the Council that the proposal meets criteria a. and b. of paragraph 155.

The appeal site lies at the edge of the village. Having considered the position and characteristics of the appeal site, I am satisfied it does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes (a), (b) or (d) set out in paragraph 143. It is also not associated with any area or asset identified in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt). I therefore find that the site meets the definition of ‘grey belt’ land.

Criterion a. of paragraph 155 requires not only that development would utilise grey belt land, but also that it would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area when those purposes are taken together. Because the site is grey belt, the proposal accords with purposes (a), (b) and (d). Its effect on purpose (c) would be limited, given the modest scale of the site in the context of the Green Belt as a whole, and its proximity to the built-up area of the village means it would not conflict with purpose (e). Taken together, these factors indicate that the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt. I therefore agree that the proposal meets criterion a. of paragraph 155.

The Council’s evidence indicates that it only has a 3.73-year supply of housing. I therefore agree that the proposal meets criterion b. of paragraph 155, which states that there should be a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. There is also no disagreement between the parties regarding criterion d., as the ‘[name] are not relevant because the proposal is not major development.

The matter of dispute between the main parties concerns criterion c. of paragraph 155, which requires developments to be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. These paragraphs relate, amongst other matters, to focusing development in locations which are or can be made sustainable and ensuring that sustainable transport modes are prioritised. There is an acknowledgment within paragraph 110 that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and that this should be taken into account in decision making.

The appeal site lies on the edge of Ravenshead, accessed from [address], a rural road subject to a 40 miles per hour speed limit. Although a bus stop is located close to the site, the Council’s submission indicates that the service available there operates only twice daily on two days a week, and the appellant accepts that it is not a regular service. Such infrequent provision would be unlikely to facilitate routine journeys to employment, education, healthcare or other services.

The appellant refers to a bus stop with a regular service approximately 712 metres from the site and relies on Manual for Streets guidance regarding 800-metre walking distances. However, pedestrian access to that bus stop is constrained. Reaching the footway that leads to that bus stop requires crossing [address], and given the road’s speed limit, repeated crossings would expose pedestrians to risk, regardless of visibility. During my site visit I observed that there is a pedestrian refuge island in proximity of the site, but future occupiers would have to walk on a narrow grass verge to reach it and that in itself would be inconvenient. Whatever the historic width of the path, the relevant consideration is its current condition and pedestrian experience. The footpath on the opposite side of the road from the appeal site is very narrow and offers a poor-quality walking environment. The route would be particularly challenging for those pushing prams or using mobility aids. Street lighting does not ameliorate the limitations of the footpath width or the quality of the route alongside a faster‐moving road. Overall, the walking environment is sub‐optimal and unattractive. Furthermore, no substantive evidence has been provided of realistic walking distances to essential facilities such as convenience shops, schools or healthcare. On the evidence before me, most everyday needs would not be met by public transport or on foot.

Cycling is presented as an alternative, to be supported through cycle storage at the technical details stage. However, the rural character of [address], combined with the road’s speed limit and the absence of dedicated cycling lanes, means cycling would be unlikely to serve as a realistic or safe primary mode of travel for most residents. Consequently, the development would not offer genuinely sustainable transport choices, and future occupants would be heavily reliant on private vehicles for day-to-day trips. Accordingly, I find that criterion c. is not met, therefore all the criteria in paragraph 155 are also not satisfied. Consequently, the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The PPG provides advice on the factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt, with openness being capable of having both spatial and visual aspects. As the proposal is for permission in principle, specific details of the development are not before me. However, the construction of one dwelling would result in built development where there is presently none. The proposed residential use would alter the visual appearance of the site with the likely introduction of a driveway, garden area, and any associated domestic paraphernalia. Accordingly, the development would affect the openness of the Green Belt, both in spatial and visual terms, albeit to a limited degree given the site’s existing level of screening, and that the proposal is for only one dwelling.

In conclusion, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would cause harm to its openness. Accordingly, it conflicts with the aims of ACS Policy 3 and those of the Framework as set out above.

Given my findings above, the proposal also conflicts with the aims of [name], 2, and 14, which collectively seek to direct development to sustainable locations and to promote a pattern of growth that reduces the need to travel, supports sustainable transport modes, and minimises reliance on the private car.

The proposed development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm its openness. Framework paragraph 153 requires that substantial weight is given to any harm. Therefore, inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances, which will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Comparisons with nearby dwellings (including the estate off [address]) are not determinative. Each case is assessed on its own merits, and no substantive evidence is before me regarding the policy basis or specific circumstances of those developments. Their existence, therefore, does not alter my findings on the accessibility of the appeal site.

There are a number of other considerations in favour of the proposal. There would be some associated short-term socio-economic benefits from jobs and the supply chain during the construction phase, and some longer-term spending by future occupiers, at least some of which would be spent in the local area. The provision of one new dwelling, which the appellant indicates would be their family home, would also go towards reducing the Council’s housing deficit.

The appellant refers to the Council’s duties under the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2025 and to national policy support for self-build housing. I am mindful of paragraphs 63 and 73 of the Framework, which collectively support the provision of, amongst other things, self-build housing, particularly on small sites. However, the application before me is for permission in principle, which is confined to consideration of the location, land use and amount of development. The appellant’s personal intention that the dwelling would be self-build is not a matter that can be secured at this stage, thus it attracts very limited weight.

Given the small scale of the development, I find that the overall benefits associated with it are modest. Accordingly, the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Consequently, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. However, paragraph 11 d) i. states that there are circumstances where the application of policies in the Framework to protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal. Footnote 7 identifies the Green Belt as such an area. I have found the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would cause harm to its openness. This constitutes a strong reason for refusing the proposal and, therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal is dismissed and permission in principle is refused.