Appeal 6002271

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the erection of 3 detached dwellings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 5/25/1647.

Permission in principle is part of a 2-stage planning consent process which provides an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. It separates the consideration of matters of principle for proposed development on a site (stage 1), from the technical detail of that development (stage 2). A full planning permission is only secured when both stages have been passed.

This appeal relates to an application for permission in principle (‘PiP’). Having regard to the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) the scope of considerations at this stage is limited to location; land use and amount of development.

The main issue is the suitability of the site’s location for the proposal, having regard to whether it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Framework establishes that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the exceptions it lists applies. Paragraph 154g) states that an exception to inappropriate development includes limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

In assessing the proposal against 154g) it is therefore necessary to establish firstly whether the site is previously developed land (PDL), for which a definition is provided by the Framework, and secondly, whether the proposal would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The main parties agree that, despite earlier uses, the site now forms part of the garden and curtilage of The Oak Barn, a residential property to the northern side of the site. Based on the findings of my site visit, I agree with that view as the site is linked physically and functionally to the house. It is not disputed that The Oak Barn is lawful and, having regard to the Framework’s definition of PDL, the site is therefore part of the curtilage of lawfully developed land. The exceptions to PDL include land in built up areas such as residential gardens, however this is not applicable here, given the site’s rural location. The absence of built form on the site does not provide a reason why it should not be included within the definition of PDL. Overall, the site can be considered PDL.

Turning to openness, the PPG identifies factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt. This includes, but is not limited to, visual and spatial aspects, duration and degree of activity.

The appeal site lies in a rural area to the north of [name], where the openness of the wider area is derived from a patchwork of open fields, interspersed with areas of woodland. There are pockets of development peppered around the landscape, including farmsteads and small clusters of homes. The appeal site sits close to a number of other buildings, including The Oak Barn and buildings around [address], as well as buildings around [site address] to the west. The site also adjoins an area of tall woodland to the north, which adds to the enclosure of the land. In combination these features notably reduce feelings of openness on the site. The absence of development on the site is apparent in glimpses from the public footpath to the south, although I noted this to be limited given the landscaping and bunds along the boundary. Overall the site makes a moderate contribution to the area’s openness in visual terms.

As the proposal at this stage relates only to the principle of the development, details of the height and scale of the proposal cannot be established. Nonetheless, given the part of the garden to which the appeal relates is currently open grassland and free of any built form, there would undoubtedly be a considerable reduction in the spatial aspect of the site’s openness. This reduction would occur through the new buildings, subdivision of the land, access, and parking areas as well as the introduction of paraphernalia associated with the occupation of the new homes. There would also be an increase in activity on the site.

Adopting a precautionary approach, the effects of the proposal on openness could be significant. However, given the site’s setting and existing nature set out above, I do not consider the level of harm to openness would be substantial. Accordingly, the proposal would conform to the exception to inappropriate development at paragraph 154g) of the Framework and would not be inappropriate development.

Given this conclusion, it is not necessary to consider the other exceptions to inappropriate development, including that at paragraph 155 of the Framework. Neither is it necessary to consider very special circumstances for Green Belt purposes.

The Council have referred to an earlier refused planning application on the site 1. I do not have details of that proposal, and it would appear to pre-date the current Framework. As such it does not provide a justification to alter the above judgement.

Policy 1 of the District Local Plan Review 1994 (the DLPR) relates to the Green Belt and includes that, except for development in specified settlements or in very special circumstances, permission will not be given for development for purposes other than those listed. That list does not include the purpose of the proposed development. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy 1.

I note the findings of another Inspector2 who found the policy to be broadly consistent with the Framework for the purposes of that appeal. Nonetheless, the list of acceptable development types in Policy 1 does not include the same exception in the Framework, under which the proposal has been found not to be inappropriate. Therefore, given the inconsistency in that respect, I attach limited weight to the conflict of the appeal scheme with Policy 1.

The reason for refusal refers to the Wheathampstead Neighbourhood Plan, however no conflict with any particular policy of that Plan has been evidenced. A copy of Policy W1 of the WNP has nonetheless been provided, and the proposal would comply with the policy insofar as it is in accordance with the Framework. The weight of the relevant DLPR policy is discussed above, and matters relating to character and appearance would be for consideration under the later [name] stage. The proposal can therefore be considered compliant with Policy W1 of the WNP.

I have had regard to the concerns raised in some consultation responses. This includes comments of the Highways Authority who cite conflict with policies of the County Council Local Transport Plan 2018. Based on the information before me, the status of this document is unclear and it is not included among the list of documents comprising the development plan or relevant considerations in the Council’s officer report. The appellant cites the Council as having previously confirmed it is not a document adopted by the Council. Even if conflict were to exist with those policies, based on the evidence before me, I ascribe that conflict limited weight. I have no strong reason to doubt that concerns relating to refuse storage could reasonably be resolved at a later stage.

The Council accept it is unable to demonstrate a five year land supply for housing. The provisions of paragraph 11d) of the Framework are therefore relevant to the appeal. For the reasons given, the application of policies in the Framework which protect the Green Belt do not provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. No other adverse impacts of granting permission have been found. Therefore the proposal also benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework.

While the Council have suggested conditions which should be imposed, the PPG is clear that it is not possible to impose conditions on a grant of permission in 1 Council’s reference 5/2021/1516 2 APP/B1930/W/243338501 principle. The timescales associated with the permission in principle are set out in the relevant Regulations3.

While the proposal would conflict with the development plan, there are material considerations of sufficient weight, in particular the provisions of the Framework, which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore allowed.