Appeal 6001795

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for 1 x No. new dwelling at Marbrick, [address], Garstang, Preston [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00496/PIP.

An application for costs has been made by [name] (the appellant), against Wyre Council. This application is the subject of a separate application.

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 route has two stages: the first ‘permission in principle’ stage establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle. The second ‘technical details consent’ stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle are limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of the subsequent technical details consent application after permission in principle is granted.

An applicant can apply for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum net number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission in principle is sought for one dwelling.

As part of the appeal process the appellant has provided an indicative layout drawing and an indicative permitted development outbuilding example. I have considered whether accepting the additional information would cause procedural unfairness to interested parties. Due to the indicative nature of the plans, I am satisfied that they do not evolve the scheme. The Council has also had the opportunity to comment on them as part of the appeal process. I have therefore had regard to them and treated them as indicative only.

The site visit was arranged as an ‘access required site visit,’ although I was not able to proceed on that basis. However, I was able to consider the main issues based on seeing the site and its surrounding context from public areas and hence my visit was carried out unaccompanied.

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.

The appeal site is in a residential area of mixed character. [address] is a narrow cul-de-sac with a relatively enclosed and somewhat constrained character, formed by a row of modest bungalows on one side and a continuous line of tall timber fencing on the other. The fencing defines the rear boundaries of a uniform terrace of dwellings that front [address]. To the north beyond the appeal site are the consistent rows of two-storey dwellings on [address], together with the intervening space separating those properties from the similarly regimented houses fronting Garstang bypass Road.

The appeal site is enclosed on all sides by close-board fencing, and at its rear is a summerhouse style structure. It contributes to the character of the area, as it provides a sense of space above fence level, between the uniform rows of two-storey dwellings, and the bungalows on [address]. The site is most obviously associated with [address], due to the extent of the boundary that aligns with the cul-de-sac turning head. In this street the bungalows are the dominant building type, rather than the dwellings on [address], which are set far back behind their fencing.

The development would be for one dwelling, and the indicative proposals suggest a true bungalow with two off road car parking spaces. A bungalow would be a development of a lesser height and massing than the uniform rows of two-storey dwellings on [address] and [address]. Given this, and the visual association of the site with [address], a development that does not adhere to the building lines and massing of those two storey dwellings, would not amount to the disruption of the visual continuity of the streetscape.

It is acknowledged that the site is somewhat constrained in size. However, the existing bungalows on [address] are also modest in scale, and the site is set back behind the turning head. There is therefore potential to retain the character and appearance of this street and respect the character of the dwellings within it, with a dwelling of suitable size and scale.

The rear windows of [address] and those of [address], which serve their main living accommodation, are orientated obliquely from the appeal site. Their gardens are divided from the site by way of close-boarded fencing. The indicative layout plan, also indicates that it is feasible to set the dwelling away from these boundaries, given my conclusion that a dwelling does not need to adhere to the building line. Moreover, it would be feasible to orientate a modest single storey dwelling in a manner that would not overlook the front facing windows of the directly facing properties on [address].

The scale and positioning of the proposed dwelling in relation to provision of acceptable living conditions for future occupiers would be a matter for the technical details consent. In figurative terms the garden is likely to be small, however the indicative drawing indicates that the site is capable of providing a functional space for sitting out and hanging washing. It also has the potential for enclosure by fencing to provide privacy.

The Council’s stance is that gardens should typically be 10.5 metres and they have also referred me to SPG41. However, there is little within this guidance or the Council’s arguments, to persuade me that a dwelling would not be served by a sufficiently private or usable garden space. For example, in the form of a minimum size requirement for the outside space.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the site is suitable for residential development with regards to land use and location. Given the residential context of the wider area and the site’s position within the settlement boundary, I have no reason to disagree.

Therefore, I conclude that the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development. As such, the development accords with the relevant provisions of Policy CDMP3 of the Wyre Local Plan2. Amongst other things the policy requires development to respect or enhance the character of an area and not have an unacceptably adverse impact on living conditions of nearby and future occupants. Moreover, development of the site is capable of complying with the relevant provisions of section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

I note the interested party concerns in relation to the suitability of [address] for additional traffic, taking account of access required for emergency vehicles, refuse collection and postal deliveries. However, this does not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal, and I note that the Highway Authority has no objections to permission in principle for a single dwelling. In addition, whether or not [address] is adopted is a private matter between parties.

The limited information provided with the appeal application is commensurate with the nature of the permission in principle stage process. The highway aspects are more appropriately determined as part of the technical details consent stage, and there can be no guarantee that just because the permission in principle has been granted, that the technical details consent will follow. At the technical details consent stage, it would be open to the decision-maker to consider specific details of the scheme including means of access, parking and other highways considerations. It takes approval of both stages for a planning permission to be secured. 1 Supplementary Planning Guidance 4, Spacing Guidance for [name] (1998). 2 Wyre Council, Wyre Local Plan (2011-2031) (incorporating partial update of 2022), (January 2023)

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 site location, land use and amount of development. Therefore, I have not imposed any conditions. Where permission in principle is granted by application, such as this, the default duration of that permission is three years, and there is no justification to vary this period in this case.

For the above reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.