Appeal 6002412

The appeal is dismissed.

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 from the technical detail of that development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage, or permission in principle stage, establishes whether a site is suitable in principle, and the second, technical details consent (TDC) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. A full planning permission is only secured when both stages have been passed.

The appeal relates to the refusal of permission in principle, for which the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) describes that matters within its scope are limited to location, land use and amount of development.

The main issues relevant to the appeal are: • Whether the appeal site would be a suitable location for the proposed development with regard to local development plan policies; and • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area including the Cotswold National Landscape (NL).

The proposed development would be for up to 5 dwellings on a parcel of land which is currently covered by trees and vegetation that is located at the junction between [address] and [name].

It is not disputed between the parties that the appeal site is located within the open countryside and Policy CP3 of the Stroud District Local Plan (LP) sets out that housing development will take place within settlement development limits in accordance with the settlement hierarchy. Bussage and Eastcombe are identified as fourth-tier accessible settlements with minimal facilities in the LP. The appeal site is located near to the settlement development limits for both settlements and within walking distances of services and facilities along pavements that are street lit, as well as bus services to Stroud where other services and facilities are available. As such, it is in an accessible location, near to services and facilities in the settlements. However, as the site is not within the defined settlement development limits the proposal would be contrary to this policy. Policy CP15 of the LP permits certain development outside of the settlement development limits but the proposal would not accord with any of these permitted developments, and as a result the scheme would be contrary to this policy as well.

Therefore, the proposed residential development in this location would be contrary to local development plan policies and thus having regard to them, the proposal would not be in a suitable location. As a result, the proposal would conflict with Policies CP2, CP3 and CP15 of the LP, insofar as they state that housing development should be located within settlement development limits.

The appeal site is located within the NL and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in these areas, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The Stroud District Landscape Assessment identifies that the site is within the [name] and key characteristics of this area include the simple and expansive character with broad undulating elevated topography and large scale strong visual pattern of fields and woodlands and sparse settlements.

The proposed development would be for up to five dwellings and is located on a site that is around 0.6 hectares. Having regard to the size of Bussage and nearby settlements, the appeal site and the potential quantum of development would be modest in scale and in light of this I consider the proposal would not amount to major development in the NL. However, this does not diminish the statutory duty to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL.

Whilst the appeal site was not specifically assessed within the Council’s Landscape Sensitivity Study (Study), this in itself does not indicate an absence of landscape sensitivity. The Study does identify that the area near to the site and between the three settlements as having medium landscape sensitivity, meaning that it may accommodate some change, but only where it can occur without significant adverse effects on character.

The site is close to but outside of the settlement development limits for Bussage. To the north of the appeal site and Bussage is Eastcombe which is a separate settlement and to the south is Chalford. The site is covered by trees and vegetation and between the site and Eastcombe is a single dwelling set within spacious gardens and then open fields, allotments, a scout hut and another coppice of trees. To the west and south of the site are residential dwellings and a petrol station although these are located on the opposite side of the two roads to the appeal site.

The surrounding built form is varied in terms of design, siting, and scale. Given its location at the periphery of Bussage, the area exhibits a transitional “edge of settlement” character, defined by sporadic built development interspersed with open arable land that separates the three settlements. When approaching from the west within Bussage, there is a clear transition from the more densely built-up village core to the more open and rural character surrounding the appeal site. Similarly, when approaching from Eastcombe, the site forms part of a largely undeveloped tract of land between the settlements, while from Chalford it is perceived as part of a more sporadic pattern of edge-of-settlement development.

In this context, the existing coppice of trees on the appeal site and its undeveloped appearance make a positive contribution to the character of this intervening landscape, which plays an important role in maintaining the distinct identity of each settlement. Even where development occurs along the connecting roads, the presence of intervening open land and transitional edges remains important in preserving the visual and perceptual separation between settlements.

The appeal site forms part of the ‘[name] in the emerging Bisley and Lypiatt Neighbourhood Development Plan (NP) which incorporates several parcels of land between the settlements. The NP has not been made and thus the weight attributed to this is very limited given that changes may still be made to the NP. Furthermore, the Eastcombe Conservation Area Appraisal identifies within its Constraints map the appeal site as part of a wider ‘Local Gap’ to retain between Chalford and Village. The Council did not find that the proposal would harm the setting of the Eastcombe Conservation Area and based on the location of the appeal site with regard to it and the intervening development, I find no reason to disagree. However, this evidence shows that the land between the settlements is recognised locally to contribute towards maintaining the integrity of each settlement.

While there is development between the settlements, this does not necessarily undermine the function of the remaining land separating the settlements, particularly given its sporadic siting and small scale. The appeal site does only form a part of the larger parcel of land between the settlements, however as it is located close to Bussage it would lead to the built form associated with this village extending out into the open countryside and enclosing the open landscape between the settlements.

The proposal would introduce built form onto land that currently contributes to the perception of openness at the edge of the settlement and even small-scale development would extend the influence of built form into what is presently open countryside. The scheme would consolidate and extend development along [address] and [name] reducing the visual distinction between the settlements. This would erode the transitional character between settlement and the rural landscape beyond and between the settlements and this would have an urbanising effect. A key characteristic of the [name] area is the sparse settlements and the urbanisation of this site and particularly with regard to its contribution to the separation of the three settlements would partly erode this key characteristic. Additionally, the likely loss of trees and development on the site would detract from the large scale strong visual pattern of fields and woodlands. For these reasons the proposed development would not conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL.

Whilst detailed design is reserved for later consideration, the principle of introducing residential development into this parcel would lead to a loss of openness and have a significant adverse effect on character. Even a development of up to five dwellings would contribute towards incremental encroachment, which over time would erode the separate identity of the settlements. The change in character would arise from the presence and location of development itself and as such, it is not evident that this could be fully mitigated at a later stage.

Having regard to national policy, great weight must be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in the NL and the scheme for the reasons given above would fail to do so.

Therefore, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the NL and would conflict with Policies ES7 and CP14 of the LP. These expect the location, materials, scale and use of development, amongst other matters, are sympathetic and complement the landscape character.

The Council also refused permission due to potential effects on the [name] and Cotswold Beechwoods Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). In light of my overall decision on the appeal, there would be no pathways leading to adverse effects on the integrity of the sites arising from my decision. Even if these can be mitigated by the submitted planning obligations, the resulting lack of harm would be a neutral matter in the planning balance and would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

The Council does not dispute that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. This is identified at 3.24 years, and this represents a considerable level of undersupply. In these circumstances, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged and footnote 8 confirms that the policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed to be out-of-date. However, paragraph 232 of the Framework confirms due weight should be given to policies, according to their consistency with the Framework.

In relation to the location of development situated outside of a defined settlement development limit, the Council’s adopted strategy is not meeting the local housing needs of the area through its development plan. It is therefore failing to meet paragraph 61 of the Framework which sets out the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and ensuring a sufficient amount of land can come forward. As such, conflict with Policies CP2, CP3 and CP15 of the LP carries very limited weight against the proposal.

Policies ES7 and CP14 of the LP are broadly consistent with the Framework which seeks to ensure development adds to the overall quality of the area and sets out that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. On this basis, and the harm identified, the conflict with these policies carries significant weight against the development.

As a result, the development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the aforementioned paragraphs of the Framework.

Paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework indicates that planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 confirms that this includes policies relating to National Landscapes. The level of harm I have identified in principle to the NL is sufficient to reach this threshold.

As such, the abovementioned policies of the Framework relating to the NL provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The presumption in favour of sustainable development would therefore not apply.

Even so, it is the Government's stated objective to significantly boost the supply of homes, and the proposed development would contribute in this regard. The development would provide short term and long-term economic benefits during and after construction. The location of the appeal site would provide future residents with access to services and facilities by sustainable travel options and the scheme would meet the sustainable transport requirements of the Framework. Additionally, the provision of homes in an area where this is a considerable undersupply would allow for local people to remain in the area. Whilst the scheme would deliver a modest number of dwellings even at the top end of what could be built, in light of the Council’s housing land supply position moderate weight is attributed to the benefits of the proposal.

Overall, I find the benefits would not outweigh the harm I have identified and no material considerations, including the Framework, have been shown to carry sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.