Appeal 6002057

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning Practice Guidance advises that the permission in principle consent is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. This is a two-stage process and planning permission is only created once both stages have been completed. The first stage, Permission in Principle (PiP), establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second stage, [name] (TDC), is when the detailed development proposals are assessed.

[name] the scope of considerations are limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of the subsequent TDC application if the PiP is granted. This appeal has been determined accordingly.

The main issues, with specific regard to location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development, are whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development with regard to relevant policies relating to development in the countryside, and flood risk.

The appeal site is a parcel of land located on [address]. As set out in the Cotswold District Local Plan (LP) it would be considered outside of any development boundary and therefore in the countryside.

LP Policy DS4, deals with open market housing outside settlements and requires them to accord with the LP policies which expressly deal with residential development in such locations. These policies are set out in LP supporting 1 set out within PPG: Permission in principle Paragraph: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] Revision date: 15 06 2018 paragraph 6.4.32. As the proposal is not for an affordable house on a rural exceptions site, for rural workers or gypsies and travellers, nor would it convert an existing building the other policies mentioned do not apply.

If this is the case, paragraph 6.4.3 goes on to refer to Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Since publication of the LP, the Framework has been reviewed a number of times, and this would now refer to Paragraph 84, which states isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless 1 or more of 5 specific criteria are met.

The appeal site is located approximately 115m from Willersey, and according to the Highway Authority (the HA) 600m from the nearest bus stop and 780m from the nearest primary school. Although these distances would be reasonable for walking, the HA considers that due to the first [address] being unlit with no footways, and the first portion of that being on a derestricted road, that it is unlikely this route would be considered safe or suitable access by pedestrians.

During the site visit it was observed that this part of the road although fairly straight, does dip and narrow when it goes under the railway bridge with no refuge space for pedestrians should they meet a car whilst traversing this section. Accordingly, and taking into consideration those who are less mobile or may be walking with young children, I also find that the location of the proposal does not provide a safe or convenient pedestrian access between the appeal site and Willersey. As such it could be considered a poorly accessible location and thereby were a house built here it would be considered an isolated home in the countryside3.

Therefore, it is necessary to test the proposal against the Paragraph 84 criteria. As the proposal does not represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or is enabling development, does not reuse a redundant or disused building or subdivide an existing dwelling, criteria b), c) and d) do not apply. This leaves criterion a) whether the dwelling is for an essential need for a rural worker, and e) whether the proposal is a design of exceptional quality.

The appellant has stated that the proposal would comply with criterion a) but has not submitted any substantive evidence to support this claim. It is acknowledged the appellant ran a business from the site and is now seeking to redevelop the site as their home4. However, it is not clear how this would represent an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside and so comply with criterion a).

Turning to criterion e), due to the nature of a PiP application design is not part of the consideration and so it would not be appropriate to automatically assume the design would not meet the tests for exceptional quality, as set out in Paragraph 84 criterion e) of the Framework. However, even though at TDC stage the proposal could potentially comply with criterion e), when limited to the scope of the PiP process, the location, proposed land use, and amount of development would not.

Therefore, with regard to location and proposed land use, the appeal site cannot be considered a suitable location with regard to policies relating to development in the 2 Policies H3, H5, H7 and EC6 3 Although the scope of consideration by the inspector in appeal APP/F1610/W/18/3218850 was wider, their conclusion on the accessibility of the appeal site aligns with my findings. 4 Page 1 of the Planning Statement dated 20 August 2025 countryside as it would fail to comply with LP Policy DS4 and Framework Paragraph 84.

The main parties do not agree in terms of the flood risk level of the appeal site and have submitted maps as evidence. The appellant’s map5 and description in the appeal statement, shows the site as being predominantly in [name] 1. Whilst the Council’s map6 shows an area of [name] 2 through the middle of the site.

Despite this discrepancy between the mapping, the evidence from both parties show that the site is separated from the highway by a significant and obvious area of flood zone 2 and 3, which could prevent access to the site. As set out in Framework Paragraph 175, in the context of flood risk, now and in the future access and escape routes should be considered as part of the development. Therefore, the location of the appeal site could put future residential occupant’s safety at risk with no obvious escape or access route should the roadside ditches flood.

Details of how surface or flood water would be managed on site could be dealt with at the TDC stage. However, there is nothing before me, including any meaningful form of sequential testing or site-specific flood risk assessment, to show how the appeal site location could provide safe access or egress in times of flooding.

Accordingly, and taking a precautionary approach due to the potential impact flood risk could have on the safety of future residential users, it cannot be concluded that the appeal site would be a suitable location for the proposal. The proposal would therefore fail to comply with LP Policy EN14, insofar as it seeks development to take a sequential approach and not increase the level of risk to the safety of occupiers, and Framework Paragraph 170 which seeks to direct inappropriate development away from areas of highest risk, but if it is necessary to build in them, to ensure the development is made safe for its lifetime.

The appellant states other residential developments in the countryside have gained approval via the PiP process. Without details of these developments, I am unable to make any meaningful comparison with that which is before me.

Public and Parish Council support is acknowledged, but there is nothing identified in these submissions which would alter my findings.

The appellant considers that the Council has not acted positively and proactively in dealing with the application and did not take the full 5 weeks to make its decision. This is noted but does not alter the planning merits of the case.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS, with the main parties agreeing that the current housing land supply is 1.8 years. As such it is necessary for me to apply paragraph 11 of the Framework. 5 Submitted with their appeal statement of case, referenced KRH2407d and dated 25 October 2025 6 Submitted with their appeal statement of case as appendix A and consisting of a screen shot dated 2025

Paragraph 11(d) indicates that permission should be granted, unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The application of Framework policies referring to areas at risk of flooding provides that to be the case here. As such, the proposal would not be the sustainable development for which Paragraph 11 of the Framework indicates a presumption in favour.

For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.