Appeal 6002044

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal application is for permission in principle, as provided for in the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development that separates the consideration of matters of principle from the technical detail. Planning permission does not exist unless both the permission in principle and the technical details (TDC) are approved. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The PPG explains that the scope of permission in principle applications is limited to location, land use and amount of development. The amount of residential development must be expressed as a range, indicating the minimum and maximum number of new dwellings.

The appeal is accompanied by a proposed site plan. In view of the above, I have treated this as illustrative.

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for residential development, having particular regard to whether the appeal site is grey belt and whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt with reference to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. It is not within a settlement and is in the countryside for the purposes of the development plan.

Policy LO 1 of the Sevenoaks District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011 (the CS) sets out that development will be focused within the built confines of existing settlements and will only take place where it is compatible with the policies for protecting the Green Belt. Policy LO 8 of the CS states that the extent of the Green Belt will be maintained. The policies of the CS are broadly consistent with the Framework. However, the CS pre-dates the Framework that introduced the concept of grey belt.

It is agreed by the parties that the site is within the Green Belt and that the proposal would not constitute any of the forms of development, set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework, that could be considered not inappropriate.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; where there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; where the development would be in a sustainable location; and where applicable, the development would meet the [name] set out in the Framework. The last of these criteria is not applicable in this case.

The glossary of the Framework provides a definition for grey belt, being “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. The purposes referred to relate to checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another and preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

It is not disputed between the parties that the appeal site is previously developed land for the purposes of the Framework. Nor is it disputed that the appeal site does not contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. However, to be regarded as not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, development in the grey belt must meet all the criteria of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Criterion a) requires the development to not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. Given the limited extent of the site, the development of the site would not affect the ability of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan from serving all five of the Green Belt purposes in a meaningful way. I therefore find no conflict with criterion a).

The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. There is therefore a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed and the proposal would satisfy criterion b).

Criterion c) relates to development being within a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. The Appellant submits that the Council has taken a narrow view of what constitutes a sustainable location and that the Framework requires sustainability to be assessed proportionately, having regard to local circumstances, the scale of development proposed and the recognition that rural locations will often be reliant on private vehicles. Whilst the overarching aims of the Framework includes a broad spectrum of factors relating to sustainability these paragraphs relate, amongst other matters, to focusing development in locations that are, or can be, made sustainable and ensuring that sustainable transport modes are prioritised.

Given its proximity to other properties, I do not consider the appeal site to be isolated in the context of paragraph 84 of the Framework. Despite this it remains necessary to consider whether the appeal site would provide a suitable location for housing, including regard to accessibility to services and facilities.

I observed a church close to the appeal site, however, overall, the appeal site is not in an easily accessible location with respect to local services and facilities, in particular those which would service the day-to-day needs of future occupants.

The Appellant states that a range of services and facilities are present in settlements in the wider area, particularly at [site address] and Swanley. However, these settlements are some distance away and the road network in the locality of the site generally comprises unlit rural lanes with no footpaths. With many of the roads single carriageway closely flanked by trees there is little space for pedestrians to take refuge from passing vehicles. These circumstances do not lend themselves to regular pedestrian activity and would be unlikely to encourage cycling for access to services and facilities, particularly, at times of darkness or inclement weather conditions. Furthermore, I have not been provided with information regarding public transport in the locality or wider area. For these reasons the site is not ideally located in terms of access to services and facilities by modes of transport other than by private motor vehicle, where a dependency on motorised travel would occur.

It is understood that the site scores 19/100 using a Department of Transport connectivity tool. Nonetheless, I am mindful of paragraph 110 of the Framework which advises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Whilst many trips generated by the development would undoubtedly be made by car, I do not consider that there are good opportunities for sustainable modes of travel commensurate with its rural location. As such, having regard to lack of services locally, the distances required to travel to access services and facilities within nearby settlements combined with a lack of public transport links and poor road conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, the appeal site cannot be reasonably regarded as sustainably located.

The Appellant indicates a willingness to include electric vehicle charging and cycle storage as appropriate mitigation measures for a reliance on the private motor vehicle. Nevertheless, the Framework has sustainable development at its core, seeking to deliver housing in the most accessible locations and limiting development in areas such as open countryside where access to services and facilities required for everyday living is more limited and increases reliance on the private car. Accordingly, the incorporation of such measures would not be sufficient to outweigh the harms identified.

I recognise that the highway authority did not object to the proposal on highway grounds. However, details of whether an appropriate means of access could be secured would be assessed at the TDC stage. In any event, the lack of objection is a neutral matter and does not alter my findings regarding the main issue.

I acknowledge that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and that development may support services in nearby villages. I also accept that as a proposal for a single dwelling is unlikely to generate significant vehicle movements, particularly, when it would be located next to a cluster of existing dwellings. Nonetheless, the proposed development would not reduce the need to travel and encourage such travel by sustainable means as advocated by the Framework. Accordingly, the appeal site is not within a sustainable location.

In order to benefit from the exemption for inappropriate development on grey belt land, the proposal must satisfy all the criteria in paragraph 155 of the Framework. Consequently, when judged against all the criteria the appeal proposal would constitute inappropriate development.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt under the terms of the Framework. Furthermore, in considering the principle of the proposal, there would be conflict with Policies SP2 and LO1 of the CS, the aims of which have been outlined above.

In coming to my decision, I have had regard to the Appellant’s comments regarding the recently approved dwellings adjacent to the appeal site1. Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that the permission was granted under a different policy context, prior to the introduction of the concept of grey belt within the updated Framework2. Furthermore, the proposal was for a greater quantum of development, and it is understood that the proposal included the removal of buildings associated with the former golf club. Therefore, the circumstance of that case differs substantially from the appeal scheme before me. Accordingly, whilst there are some similarities in terms of location, the site-specific circumstances and different details mean that they are not directly comparable. In any event, I have exercised my own judgment, having regard to the specific nature and context of the site and individual details of the proposal. Consequently, this decision has not led me away from my own

The appeal site is a generously sized plot. Nevertheless, details of design and relationship with neighbouring properties would be assessed at the TDC stage.

The appeal site is within the Kent Downs National Landscape (NL), where I have a duty to seek to further the statutory purposes of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. However, as I am dismissing the proposal on substantive grounds it Is not necessary for me to consider the matters further.

In order to benefit from the exemption for inappropriate development on grey belt land, the proposal must satisfy all the criteria in paragraph 155. For the reasons stated the proposal would not be in a sustainable location and therefore would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is harmful by definition. As directed by the Framework, I attach substantial weight to this harm.

Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 1 19/02995/FUL 2 2024 version

[name] acknowledge the factors in favour of the proposed development, such as the economic and social benefits during the construction phase and the subsequent occupation of the proposed development, and its contribution towards housing land supply, given the small scale of the proposed development the weight afforded to these benefits is limited.

Individually, and cumulatively, these other considerations do not clearly outweigh the totality of harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm arising from the proposal. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and I give considerable weight to the conflict in that regard.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The proposal would result in the provision of an additional dwelling. This is in line with the Framework’s objective of boosting housing supply. This would weigh in favour of the proposal as a social and economic benefit.

However, as a result of its location, the appeal site is not suitable in principle for residential development, and the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt under the terms set out in the Framework. Having regard to footnote 7 of paragraph 11 d i) of the Framework the identified harm to the Green Belt provides a clear reason for refusing planning permission. The appeal is therefore dismissed.