Appeal 6002427

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner above is taken from the Application Form. However, I have removed the phrases “An application for Permission in Principle for...” and “on Land on the South side of [address], [name], Adlington.” As these phrases do not refer to acts of development.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance 1 (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (permission in principle) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second stage (technical details consent) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first stage.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use, and the amount of development permitted. The Council contends that the site is not an appropriate location for residential development and deem the amount of development unacceptable.

Accordingly, the main issues are (i) whether the proposed amount of development would be acceptable at the appeal site and (ii) whether the appeal site is suitable for residential development having regard to the site’s location.

Large parts of the appeal site are in [name] 2 and 3. Also, parts of the site are steeply sloped or form part of a brook. As such, large parts of the site are 1 Planning Practice Guidance, Permission in principle, Paragraph: 001 [name]: 58-001-20180615 unsuitable for development. Consequently, up to 3 dwellings would have to be accommodated on a small section of the site. It is not immediately apparent that 3 dwellings could be accommodated on the developable section of the site. Furthermore, this has not been demonstrated by the appellant.

As it is not clear whether parts of the development would have to be located in [name] 2 or 3, it is more than a technical conflict and represents a substantive harm that goes beyond policy. Therefore, my approach to decision making is consistent within the appeal decision2 highlighted by the appellant.

Accordingly, the proposed amount of development would not be acceptable at the appeal site. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to policies SD1 and SD2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030, July 2017 (CELPS). These policies indicate that development will be expected to avoid high risk flood areas, amongst other matters.

The appeal site is in the Green Belt. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

CELPS Policy PG3 indicates that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate, except for the development specified within the policy. The exceptions include limited infilling in a village. Policy PG10 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, December 2022 (SADPD) identifies infill villages. SADPD Policy PG10 explains that proposals outside the village infill boundaries will not be considered to be limited infilling in villages, when applying CELPS Policy PG3. Poynton is not identified as an infill village.

The appeal site is outside of the defined infill boundaries and does not accord with any of the exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt specified within CELPS Policy PG3. Consequently, the appeal proposal is contrary to both CELPS Policy PG3 and SADPD Policy PG10.

The Framework also identifies limited infilling in a village as an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, the Wood judgment3 established that when making an assessment with regard to this exception, a boundary of a village defined in a development plan may not be determinative. It goes on to explain that regard should be had to the situation on the ground when assessing whether a site is in a village. As such, the aforementioned policies are not entirely consistent with the exception to inappropriate development specified within paragraph 154 of the Framework. In accordance with paragraph 232 of the Framework, limited weight is ascribed to the identified conflict with these policies.

During my site visit I observed that the centre of Poynton is around the junction between [address], Park Lane, and [address]. The settlement extends in all directions away from the centre. Residential development within Poynton is of a moderate density and largely comprises of semi-detached and detached houses. There are very few gaps in the development. Most of the roads within Poynton 2 Appeal Ref. APP/V2255/W/24/3350524 3 [name] v SSCLG, Gravesham Borough Council [2015] [name] [address] lighting. This pattern of development continues up to and including [address].

However, as you travel from [address] toward the appeal site, the nearby bridge forms a break in development. Along [site address] , the pattern of development is different to most of the development in Poynton. Firstly, there is not a footpath and there are no street lights. Also, development along [site address] is much more sporadic and often set within more spacious grounds. Furthermore, boundary vegetation contributes to a verdant appearance. This combined with the few residential properties creates a transitional character, where the area changes from being within a settlement and is transitioning into the countryside. For this reason, I do not consider the appeal site to be within Poynton. Accordingly, the proposal could not comprise limited infilling in a village.

As both CELPS and the SADPD predate the latest version of the Framework, they do not refer to grey belt land. Paragraph 155 of the Framework advises that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where it would utilise grey belt land, amongst other matters. The Framework’s definition of Grey Belt excludes land where the application of policies relating to areas in footnote 7 would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

Footnote 7 of the Framework refers to areas at risk of flooding. As set out above, large parts of the site are within [name] 2 and 3, but there is a section of land which is in [name] 1 which is directly accessed from [site address] . Nonetheless, it has not been demonstrated that 3 dwellings could be sited on land within the site which is solely within [name] 1. As such, policies relating to areas at risk of flooding would provide a strong reason for refusing the development. Consequently, the appeal site would not be grey belt land.

Taking the above into account, I consider that the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would also introduce a significant amount of new built development and residential activity to the appeal site. Although new or existing vegetation may visually screen some parts of the proposed development, there is both a spatial and visual aspect to the openness of the Green Belt. Consequently, the introduction of built development and residential activity would harm the openness of the Green Belt. Moreover, it would be contrary to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt as it would result in the encroachment of development into the countryside.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework explains that substantial weight shall be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework indicates that 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.

The proposal would provide benefits including the construction of up to 3 dwellings. Small sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area. I also note the Government’s intention to deliver 1.5 million homes and the support provided to housing delivery within the ‘Building the homes we need’ statements4. Other benefits of the proposal would include a biodiversity net gain and economic benefits linked to the construction period and from an increased local population. Nonetheless, given the scale of the proposal I ascribe moderate weight to these benefits. Consequently, the benefits do not clearly outweigh the identified harm, and very special circumstances do not exist.

The Framework advises that plans should promote the conservation of priority habitats and decisions should contribute to the natural environment. However, these are only recommendations and should be considered as part of an application for technical details consent. Accordingly, the presence of priority habitats within the site would not be a reason to withhold permission in principle by itself.

On balance, I conclude that the appeal site is not suitable for residential development having regard to the site’s location. The proposal would be contrary to CELPS policies SD1, SD2 and PG3 and SADPD Policy PG10, for the reasons outlined above.

My assessment on the acceptability of the appeal proposal is based upon the proposal as submitted. Potential alternative schemes, including removing areas within [name] 2 and 3 from the appeal site are not before me. Similarly, I note the appellant’s concerns with the conduct of the Council during the determination of the planning application. However, this is a matter between the parties and does not alter my assessment on the acceptability of the appeal proposal.

There are no policies within the development plan which support proposals which do not conserve the character and appearance of an area. Even when reducing the weight I ascribe to the conflict with CELPS Policy PG3 and SADPD Policy PG10, the proposal would still conflict with the development plan when read as a whole.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land. In these circumstances footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date. Consequently, permission in principle 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 proposed development.

Policies in the Framework relating to the Green Belt and areas at risk of flooding provide a strong reason to refuse development. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as replicated by CELPS Policy MP1, does not apply. 4 Building the homes we need, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, [name], 30 July 2024 and Building the homes we need Statement made on 12 December 2024, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Governments Statement UIN HCWS308

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.