Appeal 6001763

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for construction of a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4 dwellings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01348/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 2 stages: the first stage (‘permission in principle’) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle and the second stage (‘technical details consent’) 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 technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

In respect of residential development, an applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum number of net dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for the erection of a minimum of two dwellings and a maximum of four dwellings at the appeal site. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on that basis, having regard to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017 and the PPG.

Whilst it has not been cited as a reason for refusal, the Council’s evidence indicates that the proposal conflicts with the local development strategy for housing delivery, particularly in relation to new housing in the countryside. Given the implications of this matter and its relevance to my assessment, I must reach my own conclusions on this issue before applying the planning balance. Accordingly, I will treat this as a main issue in my reasoning below.

Both parties refer to the relevant planning history related to the appeal site, notably an earlier approval1 for an ‘outline application (with all matters reserved except access) for the construction of up to 6 no affordable dwellings (100% affordable)’, which was granted permission in June 2025. I have had regard to this decision insofar as it is relevant to the development before me.

The Council advises in its Statement of Case that incorrect policies were cited in the reasons for refusal. In respect of the first reason for refusal (Green Belt), the development plan policies relevant to that matter are [name] 2 and SWDP 16 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) (SWDP). For the second reason for refusal (affordable housing), the correct policies are [name] 13 and SWDP 16 of the same plan. The appellant has had the opportunity to comment on these corrections, and I have determined the appeal on the basis of the correct policy framework.

The main issues are whether the location, the proposed land use and the amount of development is suitable, with particular regard to: • whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework), taking into account the effect on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it; • whether the proposal would provide an appropriate level of affordable housing; • whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for the proposal, having regard to the development strategy for the area and accessibility to services and facilities; and • if the development is inappropriate, would the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is to be regarded as inappropriate unless it falls within the listed exceptions. Paragraphs 154 and 155 identify those exceptions, including, at criterion (e) of paragraph 154, ‘limited infilling in villages’.

The Framework does not define ‘limited infilling’. However, case law2 confirms that the concept of a ‘village’ need not align with a defined settlement boundary, and that the matter should be assessed having regard to the physical situation ‘on the ground’. Whether a proposal amounts to limited infilling is ultimately a matter of planning judgment, taking into account the number and grouping of nearby 1 Planning Application Ref W/23/01123/OUT 2 [name] v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Gravesham Borough Council [2015] EWCA Civ195 buildings, their spacing and relationship, and the position of the site relative to surrounding development and adjoining open land.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of land on the southern edge of Cutnall Green. It is accessed via an existing driveway leading from [address] and sits immediately behind the linear row of dwellings along that road. To the north lies the residential estate of Oak Tree Drive, which now forms part of the prevailing pattern of development in this part of the village. As such, the site forms part of the village-edge arrangement, with open countryside extending to the south and west.

The Council refers to previous appeal decisions that have described infilling as filling a gap between two buildings or within a built-up frontage. In this case, the appeal site does not form a small gap within a continuous frontage or a tightly defined cluster. However, the correct approach requires consideration of the site’s spatial and visual relationship with the settlement edge, together with the prevailing pattern of development. The degree to which the proposal would be perceived as encroaching into the countryside depends on its siting, scale and layout rather than solely on its position relative to a notional frontage line.

Applying this approach, I observed that the site occupies a village-edge location, with residential built form to the north and east and open land to the south and west. Although views across the adjoining agricultural land are possible, established boundary vegetation provides a strong degree of visual and spatial containment. From my site visit, the ‘situation on the ground’ was that the appeal site has a stronger interrelationship with the neighbouring residential properties than with the wider countryside. In that context, a small-scale, limited form of edge-of-settlement development as proposed would be visually well related to the existing residential built form. On the basis of the evidence before me, I consider that the proposal could reasonably be regarded as ‘limited infilling’ for the purposes of paragraph 154(e) of the Framework.

Consequently, as confirmed by the Lee Valley3 judgement, having found the development to be ‘not inappropriate’, it should not be regarded as harmful either to the openness of the Green Belt or to the purposes of including land within it. The effects on both matters are inherent in its classification as not inappropriate development under the Framework. In these circumstances, there is also no requirement to demonstrate very special circumstances.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would be in accordance with criteria A and E of Policy SWDP 2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) (adopted February 2016) and the objectives of Chapter 13 of the Framework, which seek to maintain the openness and permanence of the West Midlands Green Belt by requiring development to be considered in accordance with national policy, with which the proposal would comply.

Policy SWDP 16 has been cited in relation to the first reason for refusal. However, that policy concerns rural exception housing sites, and the appeal scheme has not been advanced on that basis. The fact that the proposal is not a rural exception scheme does not, in itself, indicate conflict with the policy. Accordingly, any [address] Authority, R (on the application of) v Epping Forest District Council & Anor (Rev 1) [2016] [name] 404, t perceived inconsistency with Policy SWDP 16 would not be determinative in this case.

The Council set out that the 2021 update of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) identifies a minimum net imbalance of 117 affordable dwellings per year across the District over the next five years. In addition, [name] data (‘[name]) indicates that, as of 27 November 2025, 2,547 households were recorded as being in housing need.

I also acknowledge the broader context of affordable housing need, including social impacts such as rising homelessness, increased reliance on temporary accommodation, overcrowding and poor living conditions, adverse effects on health and wellbeing associated with housing insecurity, reduced economic mobility, widening social inequality, particularly for younger people. declining community cohesion, and increased pressure on public services such as schools and healthcare.

I recognise the extant outline permission4 for up to six affordable dwellings, which was granted under the relevant exception provisions in response to an identified local need. I also note the Council’s reference, in the decision notice, to the proposal allegedly undermining public confidence and trust in the planning system. This appears to relate to the shift from a fully affordable scheme to one of open market dwellings. However, the existing outline permission is a material consideration rather than a determinative one, and the existence of an alternative consented scheme does not, in itself, justify refusing the proposal before me.

Notwithstanding this history, the appeal site lies within a Designated Rural Area. The Council indicates that a Section 106 agreement would therefore be required at the [name] stage to secure a financial contribution towards affordable housing. Although this would differ from the on-site provision previously approved, and subject to the details to be finalised at that stage, the proposal would nonetheless make a contribution towards meeting the District’s wider affordable housing needs.

The likelihood of the appeal scheme being implemented instead of the approved affordable housing scheme is not a reason to refuse the proposal now. I also note the Council’s position that there are no alternative sites in Cutnall Green capable of delivering affordable housing. Nevertheless, while these matters are material considerations, my task is to assess the appeal proposal on its own merits against the development plan and other relevant considerations. The Council’s assumptions regarding which scheme might come forward are speculative and do not amount to planning harm capable of justifying refusal. Resisting new housing simply because a different scheme may be preferred is not a legitimate planning

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the proposal would provide an appropriate level of affordable housing, secured at the [name] stage. It would therefore comply with [name] 13 of the SWDP, which seeks to ensure that to deliver places that are more sustainable, development will make the most effective and sustainable use of land. 4 [name]/23/01123/OUT

Again, Policy SWDP 16 has been cited in relation to the second reason for refusal. However, for the same reasons set out above, the fact that the proposal is not a rural exception scheme does not, in itself, indicate conflict with that policy. Accordingly, any perceived inconsistency with Policy SWDP 16 would, once more, not be determinative in this case.

Policy SWDP 2 of the SWDP sets out the development strategy and settlement hierarchy for the District. [name] confirms that development in the open countryside will be strictly controlled and limited to specified forms of residential development in defined circumstances.

The appeal site lies outside, albeit immediately adjacent to, the adopted settlement boundary and is therefore within the open countryside for the purposes of Policy SWDP 2. The proposal would introduce new dwellings in this location, and it does not fall within any of the exceptions identified in Policy SWDP 2, nor is it supported by any other policy of the SWDP that permits new housing in the open countryside. [name] recognise that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, that finding does not override the requirement for the scheme to accord with the development strategy. Accordingly, it would conflict with the development strategy for the area.

Furthermore, Cutnall Green is a Category 3 village, with a very limited range of services and facilities, comprising a post office, café, pub and restaurant, and is served by poor public transport links. Whilst the site lies immediately adjacent to the existing settlement boundary, and some basic day-to-day needs can be met locally, future occupants would be likely to rely on the private motor vehicle to meet the majority of needs, including access to education, health and groceries. However, I also recognise that the Framework states that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan making and decision-making. I return to this matter in my planning balance below.

Consequently, the proposed development would not represent a suitable location for housing, having regard to the development strategy for the area and accessibility to services and facilities. It would be contrary to criteria B and C of Policy SWDP 2 of the SWDP which sets out the development strategy and settlement hierarchy for the District, strictly controlling development in the open countryside.

Interested parties raised concerns regarding access, highway safety, neighbouring living conditions, and potential issues with land contamination, biodiversity and drainage. However, these matters relate to technical, site-specific details that can be appropriately addressed at the [name] stage, where matters of layout, landscaping and any mitigation can be fully considered. Notably, the site is of sufficient size to accommodate between two and four dwellings while maintaining appropriate separation distances to safeguard neighbouring living conditions, particularly in respect of privacy.

I have found that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I am also satisfied that it would provide an appropriate level of affordable housing, secured at the [name] stage. However, I have also found conflict with criteria B and C of Policy SWDP 2 of the SWDP, by virtue of the site lying outside any defined settlement boundary, not being allocated for housing, and failing to fall within any of the exceptions set out in that policy. In addition, future occupants would be likely to rely on the private motor vehicle to meet the majority of day-to-day needs. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole.

The Council confirms that it can only currently demonstrate a 1.1 year supply of deliverable housing sites. Consequently, paragraph 11 of the Framework is engaged. As the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the application of policies in the Framework that protect the Green Belt would not provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development, and the ‘tilted balance’ set out in paragraph 11 d) ii would be engaged.

Paragraph 11 d) ii states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or where the most important policies for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. This includes consideration of key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places, and providing affordable homes. Footnote 8 confirms that this applies where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, while Footnote 9 identifies the key policies that should be given particular regard.

Whilst the conflict with the development plan amounts to harm, the development strategy is clearly failing to deliver a five-year supply of housing. Accordingly, the weight to be afforded to the conflict with the development strategy, in light of the land supply shortfall, is reduced and I attach moderate weight to the conflict in these circumstances. I also take into account the Framework’s recognition that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. On this basis, the harm arising from the site’s reliance on the private motor vehicle, and its consequent accessibility limitations, particularly taking in to account the modest scale of development and the lack of objection from the Highway Authority, also attracts moderate weight.

The proposal would deliver fewer dwellings than the approved six unit scheme, and the Council contends that this would undermine the Government’s aim of significantly boosting the supply of homes and represent an inefficient use of land. However, given the Council’s 1.1-year housing land supply and the associated shortfall, the provision of between two and four dwellings as proposed would still attract significant weight in the planning balance. It would also remain consistent with the Government’s objective, set out in paragraph 61 of the Framework, of significantly boosting the supply of homes.

The proposal would also provide some socio-economic benefits, including supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities. There would also be economic benefits contributing to building a stronger, responsive, and competitive economy, supporting growth with construction and post-construction benefits, including short-term construction employment and ongoing local expenditure from future occupants, supporting the vitality of local services in Cutnall Green. Whilst these economic benefits have not been quantified by the appellant, I still consider that the modest scale of the development would mean that together these benefits carry moderate weight in favour of the development.

In reference to the key policies referred to in footnote 9 of paragraph 11 of the Framework, the proposal would secure affordable housing under the [name] as noted above. The future [name] application would also ensure that appropriate densities would be achieved, making effective use of land, and that a well-designed scheme would be secured. Consequently, I am satisfied that the proposal would be in accordance with the key policies referred to in footnote 9.

Accordingly, in the context of paragraph 11 d) ii of the Framework, the adverse impacts of the development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the Framework’s policies taken as a whole. This includes consideration of key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes. Therefore, although the proposal would conflict with the development plan when considered in its entirety, material considerations, including the Framework, outweigh that conflict and indicate that planning permission should be granted for development that is not fully in accordance with the plan.

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, the type and amount of development.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is allowed.