Appeal 6001670

For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.

Outline planning permission is sought, with all matters other than access reserved for future consideration. Although a layout plan has been submitted, the details shown are illustrative only, other than insofar as it relates to access.

The main issues in this case relate to: • the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the development on highway safety, including whether the proposed access arrangement would be safe and suitable for all users; and • whether this would be a suitable site for housing with regard to the accessibility of services and facilities for future residents.

The appeal site lies in the open countryside, outside the village envelope for [site address] as currently defined by the Chapel and [name], Maer and Aston, and Whitmore Neighbourhood Plan (and as defined by the emerging Local Plan1). It comprises a parcel of open, agricultural land extending to some 0.96 hectares, located on gently rising land on the western side of Woodside, a narrow lane that runs between the A51 ([address]) to the south and the A53 ([address]) to the north, joining [address] shortly before the A53 junction. 1 Draft [site address] Local Plan (2020-2040) Appeal Decision: 6001670

The roughly rectangular shaped site is bounded by mature hedgerow along the road frontage and is adjoined by an area of mature woodland to the south. [address] Farm complex lies immediately to the north, with farmland to the rear (west). Opposite the appeal site, on the eastern side of Woodside is a small cluster of rural dwellings. The settlement of [site address] , and an adjacent 200 dwelling development scheme (currently under construction on the northern side of the A532) lie to the north/northeast of the appeal site. I am also aware of an extant permission for 40 dwellings between [site address] and the eastern side of Woodside/[address].3

Whilst there is development on the eastern side of Woodside, including the dwellings opposite and the approved 40 dwelling scheme already referred to, and noting approved schemes for residential development at [address], further along Woodside to the south,4 I saw that in stark contrast, built development along the western side of Woodside is limited to the buildings associated with [address] Farm, which are set back from the road, behind open land.

Notwithstanding the development on the opposite side of the road, the appeal site and its surroundings on the western side of the road have a prevailing rural character, comprising open fields and woodland, bounded by tall hedgerows and an abundance of mature trees within the landscape. I saw that Woodside effectively ‘contains’ the extent of built development that is spreading out from the southwestern side of the settlement of [site address] (both existing and proposed), with open countryside beyond, including the appeal site. The suburban context to the east contrasts starkly with the countryside to the west. In essence, Woodside provides a clearly defined, defensible built development boundary to the spreading settlement of [site address] at this point. The appeal scheme would clearly breach that, ‘leap-frogging’ residential development into the open countryside. There can be no doubt in this regard, that residential development on this open, agricultural land would materially change its current rural character and appearance.

Whilst change does not necessarily equate to harm, the dwellings proposed would introduce suburban development onto this currently open rural site. I recognise that it is intended that the roadside hedge would be retained. However, as discussed later on, the lack of clarity in relation to visibility splays etc means that I cannot be certain that it could be retained as it is now. Even noting that the illustrative layout shows dwellings on relatively generous plots set around an area of green space, and assuming that the hedge could be retained as is, the development, which would be on gently rising land, would still be clearly perceived from the road and the surrounding area.

In my view, the development would not be well integrated with existing development and would cause substantial harm, undermining and eroding the attractive, countryside appearance of the site and its surroundings. There would be conflict in this regard, with policy CSP1 of the [name], with policy DC2 of the Neighbourhood Plan, and with guidance in the Council’s Urban Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2010) which together and among other things seek to ensure that new development relates well to and respects the 2 Application No 21/01041/OUT 3 Application No 22/01105/FUL 4 Application No 25/00688/[name] in principle for 3-5 dwellings on land to the south of [address] and 25/00080/[name] permission for four dwellings within the curtilage to [address]. Appeal Decision: 6001670 character, identity and context of the Borough’s landscape, including its rural setting and settlement pattern. There would be conflict too with the Framework, which states that decisions should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Moreover, with the aim of achieving well-designed places, it seeks to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.

Access to the site is a matter for determination at this outline stage. The appeal site does not have direct access onto the adjacent highway, Woodside. Rather, access would be taken via an existing driveway off Woodside, which serves [address] and the associated commercial/ agricultural enterprise. The red line application site boundary includes the front part of that adjacent driveway and its junction with Woodside.

Part of the stated concerns of the Highway Authority relate to intensification of traffic on the adjacent highway (Woodside) as a consequence of the development proposed. The TRICS database indicates that the seven dwellings proposed would be likely to generate just five two-way movements in the AM peak, and the same again in the PM peak,5 an average of just one vehicle every 12 minutes. On any measure, and being mindful of the likely traffic movements that would be introduced onto Woodside/[address] as a consequence of the already permitted development previously referred to (should it be built out)6, I am not persuaded that the volume of traffic movements associated with the appeal scheme would necessarily intensify traffic movements on Woodside to such a degree that there would be a noticeable, never mind unacceptable impact on highway safety and I find no harm in this regard.

Other concerns relate to the geometry of the access. The Highway Authority advises that whilst the access to a development of this size does not have to be formally adopted, it is required to be constructed to adoptable standards. It is argued, in this regard, that an adoptable layout between the highway (Woodside) and the point of the proposed turning head within the main part of the appeal site, has not been provided. The appellants suggest instead, that it simply needs to be demonstrated that the proposed access arrangements would be safe for all users.

[name] (RCVs - a particular concern of the Highway Authority) use the current access to service the farm, and I am advised that HGVs have previously used the junction in connection with use of the farm site as a haulage depot, as well as associated farm traffic, all apparently without incident - no personal injury accidents have been recorded on Woodside/ [address] over the most recent five-year period (2019-2023).

I understand that the appellants currently have an agreement with the waste collection authority, which allows for RCVs to enter the farm for refuse collection purposes, turning round within an old haulage yard so that drivers can arrive and depart the farm site in a forward gear. It is suggested, in this regard, that RCVs would be able to service the proposed development using that arrangement, stopping on the driveway immediately adjacent to the appeal site entrance without 5 AM peak 08.00-09.00 PM peak 17.00-18.00 6 Including the 40 dwelling scheme to the northeast of the appeal site, where no such issues appear to have been raised by the Highway Authority. Appeal Decision: 6001670 the need for vehicles to enter the residential site itself. Whether or not that may have been agreed with the waste collection authority, that arrangement relies on land outwith the application site, at the discretion of the owner, which arrangement is not secured and could change at any time. Future residents of the proposed development would their own servicing arrangements.

The illustrative site layout includes a turning head within the main site, adjacent to a possible binstore area. To access that, an RCV would need to turn off Woodside onto the existing farm access and then immediately turn into the main part of the appeal site. The appellants’ final Technical Note7 includes swept path assessments for those manoeuvres for vehicles approaching both from the north and south, and leaving in both directions.8

It would seem that some of the turning manoeuvres would encroach onto the far side of the farm access, potentially bringing the RCV into conflict with any traffic waiting at the junction to turn onto Woodside. There would also be conflict with traffic trying to exit the appeal site onto the farm access drive. At such times, the RCV would be required to wait on the highway until exiting vehicles had cleared the access (either by reversing back into the site or by entering onto the highway) allowing the RCV to enter. In addition, the Highway Authority confirms that the swept paths show that RCVs travelling north and turning left onto the access would have to go beyond the confines of the existing surfaced access arrangements, into an area currently occupied by hedgerow in order to make the manoeuvre into the appeal site, with vehicles turning left out of the access onto Woodside having to cross onto the opposite side of the highway. Whether or not that happens at most residential junctions, as asserted by the appellants, does not provide justification for a potentially unsafe manoeuvre here.

Moreover, it is not at all clear that the required visibility splays can be achieved. The appellants advise that although Woodside/[address] is subject to the national speed limit, its constrained width (approximately 5.5m) and rural nature results in vehicles travelling at significantly reduced speeds.9 My attention is drawn, in this regard, to the approved [name] for the recent [address] application,10 which confirmed observed 85th percentile speeds on Woodside of between 33.5 - 36.5 mph. On that basis, the required minimum visibility splays at the junction are 2.4m x 55m to the north and 2.4m x 48m to the south.

The appellants’ July 2025 [name] that accompanied the application indicates that splays in excess of the minimum requirement can be achieved, with a plan at [name] of that Note purporting to show that. However, the plan is not to a stated scale and is very small. Whilst splays are shown, it is not possible to see with any degree of clarity, the exact relationship of the line in relation for instance, to the roadside hedging and the highway boundary. I note, in this regard, that the hedge is virtually at the back of the carriageway, with little in the way of adjacent verge. It is not sufficiently clear in my view, that the required splays can be secured over land in the control of the appellants, and/or form part of the red line application site, and/or form part of the highway. Moreover loss of any part of the 7 [name] dated 21 October 2025 8 The plans do not show how an RCV might manoeuvre within the site so as to enter and leave in a forward gear, but that could be conditioned were the appeal to succeed. I have no reason to suppose, in this regard, that sufficient space would not be available for that. 9 [name] 2025 10 Application No 25/00080/OUT Appeal Decision: 6001670 hedgerow could have implications for impact on the character and appearance of the area.

I appreciate that the existing junction of the farm access with Woodside may have operated without incident for many years. However, those vehicles are not required to make the turning manoeuvres that would be required for servicing of the appeal site. I am also mindful that there is the potential for traffic movements along the lane to increase, should the currently permitted developments referred to be built out. Paragraph 116 of the Framework confirms that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Whilst the traffic movements generated by the development proposed may be small numerically, I cannot be sure, on the information before me, that the proposed access arrangement would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety for all users. As such, whether or not the access needs to be to an adoptable standard, it has not been demonstrated that it would operate safely for all users. There would be conflict in this regard with [name] policy SP3 which seeks, among other things, to increase safety of travel.

There is no dispute that the appeal site is within walking and cycling distance of [name], the village envelope to which (as currently defined which is located some 500m away to the northwest and has sufficient facilities to meet many of the day to day needs of future occupiers. Access to those facilities for pedestrians and cyclists would be via Woodside for a distance of some 190 metres, up to the junction with the A53, and then along the main road.

Whilst there are footways along both sides of the main road from the Woodside/ [address] junction, Woodside/[address] is unlit, with no footways and with traffic subject to a 60 mph speed limit. In coming to a view as to whether this would provide a suitable route for pedestrians and cyclists into [site address] , I am mindful of previous approvals for development in the immediate area that have been drawn to my attention.

I understand that the approved development of 200 dwellings on the northern side of the A53 includes upgrading the Woodside/[address] junction to a roundabout, with a new footway to be extended approximately 30m down Woodside/[address]. That would leave around 160m stretch with no footway between the appeal site and that point.

Two permissions have been granted by the Authority on the opposite side of Woodside, some way to the south of the appeal site.11 In both cases, the officer’s report noted that whilst the sites were in reasonable cycling distance of [site address] , it was likely, given the rural nature of the site, that future occupiers would be reliant on the private car to access a number of higher level services and facilities. In both instances, notwithstanding likely reliance on the private car, it was held that the sites were in an accessible location. Those sites are further south than the appeal site, with a consequently longer stretch of Woodside for pedestrians and cyclists to navigate before reaching the A53.12 11 Application Nos 25/00688/PIP and 25/00080/OUT 12 [name] understand that future occupiers on both those sites would be able to access [site address] via public footpath as an alternative to the lane. Appeal Decision: 6001670

In granting permission on appeal for 40 houses on the east of Woodside/[address], to the northeast of the appeal site,13 the Inspector found that a range of local facilities in [site address] would be accessible for future occupiers, in most cases walkable from the site, but also via a regular bus service to [name] and [site address] . Whilst he considered that day-to-day needs would not be wholly sustained that way, residents would not be wholly reliant on the use of private vehicles. He went on to conclude that the site was in a suitable location having regard to access to services, facilities and employment. The current appeal site is approximately 150m further south than that site.

The appellants also draw attention to the Authority’s approval for two dwellings on [address] on the northern side of the A53).14 In that case, future occupiers would have to use a [address] that was unpaved and unlit before reaching the A53. Notwithstanding its shortcomings, the officer considered that the route provided ready access on foot, albeit with care, to the services and facilities in [site address] . That is not dissimilar to the situation that arises with the appeal scheme.

I am not aware of any material changes in terms of the services and facilities available in [site address] , in the service provided by the No 64 bus (referred to in the [address] decisions) which runs along Woodside/[address] with stops close to the appeal site (albeit currently unmarked) or other bus services along the A53, or in terms of general conditions on Woodside/[address] since those permissions. I see no reason therefore, why the appeal site should not similarly be considered to occupy a suitable location in terms of accessibility. Whilst not ideal, I conclude that future residents would not be wholly reliant on the private car to access every day service and facilities and find no material harm in this regard.

In support of its case, the Council draws attention to two appeal decisions on land at Farcroft, [address], [site address] , on the northern side of the A53,15 where the respective Inspectors found that services and facilities were not readily accessible for pedestrians. I note that the route along [address] in those cases did not include footways or lighting (as is the case with Woodside in part) but the decisions record that the services within [site address] were approximately 1.2- 1.6km walking distance from the site, further than the distances involved in the current appeal. Those decisions are not directly comparable therefore, to the development before me.

The appellants have offered to provide a footpath link between the appeal site and the A53 on land within their ownership. However, whilst that could be considered as a benefit of the scheme, in as much as existing pedestrians could use it, and noting that it could represent an enhanced option in terms of safety for future residents on the appeal site, its provision is not necessary for me to have reached my conclusion above in terms of accessibility.

Other concerns raised by local residents not dealt with above, including impact on local infrastructure and services, priority to be given for developing brownfield sites, flooding and drainage, loss of agricultural land, housing mix, residential amenity 13 Application No 22/01105/FUL 14 Application No 20/00127/OUT 15 APP/P3420/W/19/3227879 and APP/P3420/W/23/3320812 Appeal Decision: 6001670 and ecology and biodiversity, are addressed in the officer’s comprehensive report. For the reasons set out therein, I find no material harm in those regards.

In support of the appeal, the appellants draw attention to an application for three dwellings at Farcroft, [address], which attracted an officer recommendation for approval.16 [name] do not know the outcome of that application, the related officer’s report notes that the new buildings in that case would fill in the areas around existing buildings. Moreover, it would seem that there were no material highway safety concerns. Accordingly, the circumstances of that case are materially different from the circumstances that prevail in relation to the development before me and it does not add support for the appeal scheme.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply. With a stated supply of 3.08 years, the shortfall is significant. As such, applying paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the so-called ‘tilted balance’ is engaged. In essence, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to the key policies of directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well designed places.

The officer’s report also confirms that the basket of development plan policies most important for determination of the proposal are out-of-date,17 and so the tilted balance is engaged in any event, regardless of the housing land supply position. The Authority’s subsequent Statement of Case suggests that the basket of policies should no longer be considered as out-of-date in the light of policies in the emerging Local Plan18 which, in its view, should be afforded moderate to significant weight as it has reached [name] stage. However, the development plan is made up of adopted documents.19 Policies in emerging plans do not have the same statutory force. As such, I consider the position to be as set out in the officer’s report, namely that the basket of development plan policies most important for determination of this appeal is out of date.

The proposal would achieve an increase in housing supply at a time when the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply, in what I have found can be considered as an accessible location. Moreover, there would be limited short-term (unspecified) economic benefits from the construction process and from future occupation of the dwellings and associated spend locally. The proposal would also achieve biodiversity net gain. Given the scale of the proposal, these are further modest benefits. As noted earlier, a further modest benefit would be the provision of an off-road footpath between the appeal site and the A53, which could be used by members of the public traversing the lane.

Among other things, policies ASP6 and SP1 of the [name] direct new housing primarily towards brownfield sites within settlement envelopes, whilst Local 16 Application No 25/00751/OUT 17Namely policies SP1 and ASP6 of the [name] (2006-2026), policy H1 of the Local Plan (2011) and policy HG1 of the Neighbourhood Plan. 18 Consultation on [name] to the draft [site address] Local Plan 2020-2040 19 section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) Appeal Decision: 6001670 Plan policy H1 is only permissive of new residential development in specified circumstances, none of which apply here. The appeal site is located outwith currently defined settlement limits and is in the open countryside in policy terms. Whilst the development would not accord with those locational policies (or with similar policies in the emerging plan20) the absence of a five year housing land supply means that I can only give that conflict limited weight. However, to be weighed against the identified benefits is the potentially unacceptable harm in terms of highway safety and the significant harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of this rural area. These are serious shortcomings to which I afford substantial weight.

In my view, whilst the proposal would align with the objectives of the Framework that seek to significantly boost housing supply and promote effective use of land, I have found the contribution to housing supply to be a modest benefit alongside other modest benefits. In this case, the adverse impacts I have identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the totality of those benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the proposal would not represent sustainable development with regard to paragraph 11d) of the Framework.

The appellants draw attention to the Proposed reforms to the ‘National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system’,21 in particular policy S5. Whilst the policy is supportive of housing outside settlements where there is not a five year housing land supply, that is where it would be well related to an existing settlement. Given my findings above in light of the site specific context of the appeal site, this draft policy does not tell in favour of the appeal scheme.

For the reasons given above, I consider that the development proposed would be contrary to the development plan when considered as a whole, with no material considerations that outweigh that conflict. I conclude on balance therefore, that the appeal should not succeed.