Appeal 6002539

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; • whether the appeal site would be in a suitable location for the proposed development, in terms of access to services and facilities; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposed development complies with the policies of the Net Zero Carbon Development Plan Document (NZCDPD); • the effect of the proposed development on ecological interests; and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm as to amount to very special circumstances.

The site is located within the Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Framework states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Policy DS18 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 (WDLP) states that the Council will apply national planning policy to proposals within the Green Belt. As such there is consistency with the Framework.

Development within the Green Belt is inappropriate with the exceptions of the types of development listed in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework. Based on the evidence before me, I have found that none of the exceptions listed under paragraph 154 of the Framework apply to the proposed development.

The appellant contends that the proposed development would not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt in terms of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework is subject to four criteria. The first of these (a) states that the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purpose (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan.

Grey belt is defined in the Framework as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b) or (d) stated in paragraph 143 of the Framework.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal site does not contribute to purposes (a), (b) and (d) given in paragraph 143 of the Framework, and it would utilise grey belt land. From the evidence before me and from my own observations, I have no reason to disagree. I find that the proposal accords with criterion (a).

As the Council states that they do not have a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed and the proposal accords with criterion (b).

Criterion (c) relates to the development being in a sustainable location, with particular regard to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. The appellant has provided a table including a list of nearby settlements and destinations with their respective distances and travel times by car from the appeal site. The closest of these is indicated as Dorridge, which I saw contains many services and facilities, at a distance of 2.2 miles and a 6-minute travel time by car. I observed that [site address] has no street lighting or footpath and is narrow for considerable parts of its length.

These road conditions would not be an attractive option for cyclists and walkers and those with mobility issues, particularly during adverse weather and during the hours of darkness. Therefore, the necessary day-to-day services and facilities that would be required by future occupants of the proposed dwelling would not be readily accessible. Moreover, no details are before me of bus services within the locality of the appeal site to gain access to these services and facilities. Due to a lack of genuinely sustainable travel choices, the occupants of the proposed dwelling would be heavily reliant on private motor vehicles to access services and facilities on a regular basis.

Paragraph 110 of the Framework acknowledges opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. However, this does not negate the requirement to offer genuine choice of transport modes and ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users, as required by paragraph 115. The likely limited increase in traffic on the highway network from a single dwelling and the presence of nearby dwellings has not led me away from this finding. Consequently, the proposed dwelling would not be in a sustainable location and would not accord with criterion (c).

As the proposal is not for a major development, criterion (d) is not relevant.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal decision1. Whilst key similarities with the proposal are outlined, I have not been presented with the full details, including the Inspector’s decision letter. Notwithstanding this, it is indicated that the appeal site was between two existing houses, closer to a large built-up area than the appeal scheme before me, and the distance to the closest bus stop was identified. Therefore, it appears that there are material differences between the schemes. In any case, I have considered the appeal before me on its individual planning merits.

In conclusion, as the proposed development would not accord with criterion (c), it would not fall under the exception within paragraph 155 of the Framework. The proposal would therefore be inappropriate development within the Green Belt in terms of the Framework and WDLP Policy DS18.

In considering the concept of openness, the courts have found that it broadly has spatial and visual dimensions. Moreover, the effect on openness is not confined solely to physical works but also the duration and activity associated with a proposal.

The proposed development would introduce a large 2-storey family sized dwelling with an attached single storey double garage on open, undeveloped land. This structure, and the residential use of its garden, along with vehicular movements associated with the development would result in significant harm to the spatial openness of the Green Belt.

Views of the appeal site are afforded through gaps in the hedgerow as well as the existing access, which would be utilised for the new dwelling, along [site address] . I also saw that much of the site is enclosed by a post and rail timber fence, and along the eastern boundary it is open to a public footpath. Consequently, the proposed development would be noticeably visible along this stretch of [site address] and from the adjoining public footpath, resulting in significant harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt.

Taking all these factors into consideration, the proposal would have a greater impact on openness than the existing situation.

WDLP Policy H1 is referred to in the officer report but is not stated in the Council’s Decision Notice. As this policy sets out the circumstances when housing development will be permitted and directing most new housing development 1 Appeal Ref: APP/B1930/W/24/3349774 towards built-up areas, it is relevant to the proposed development, and I have considered it in determining this appeal. There is also consistency between this policy and paragraph 84 of the Framework insofar as avoiding the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless a proposal meets specific circumstances. The proposal does not meet any of the specific circumstances given in paragraph 84 of the Framework.

As detailed above, I have found that occupants of the proposed dwelling would be heavily reliant on private motor vehicles to access services and facilities on a regular basis.

I note that the appeal site is not physically isolated, with residential properties to the immediate west and on the opposite side of [site address] . Nevertheless, it is still a marked distance from a built-up area. As such, I find the appeal site to be isolated from a settlement, and I see no reason before me to locate the development within an inherently inaccessible location by means other than private motor vehicles.

For these reasons, the appeal site would not be a suitable location for the proposed development, in terms of access to services and facilities. Whilst the Council has not identified conflict with the development plan on this main issue it is contrary to the Framework which seeks: sustainable development in rural areas; to avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside; to maximise the opportunity to use sustainable transport solutions; and to achieve safe and suitable access to the site for all users.

[site address] is characterised by a narrow country road, lined by hedgerows and trees, that holds expansive views of predominantly flat open fields and pockets of woodland. Dwellings are sporadically positioned along the length of [site address] . The open and rural nature of the spaces between the houses is a significant contributing factor to the character and appearance of the area.

Both of the main parties have referred to landscape character type. The Council notes the appeal site lies within the [name] landscape character type, as defined within the adopted ‘[name], containing small-scale, pastoral landscape, with numerous mature hedgerow oaks and a network of minor lanes, often with ribbon development. The appellant states that it appears to sit within Warwickshire County Council’s ‘Arden Parkland Character Area’ and exhibits some examples of this landscape character type, including, amongst other things, middle distance views enclosed by woodland and thick roadside hedgerows, often with bracken. Whilst no documents have been provided to support the respective cases on this issue, there is broad compatibility between these descriptions. From the evidence before me and from my own observations there is no reason for me to come to a different conclusion.

Despite the retention of the existing hedgerows and trees, to be complemented with new landscaping as well as the rear section of the site being retained as undeveloped land, the new dwelling and associated garden would erode the existing open and rural nature of the site. Moreover, the proposal would encroach into an open field that, along with an adjoining field to the east as well as to the north, on the opposite side of the road, currently marks a significant gap between residential properties along this stretch of [site address] .

Whilst the Council did not object to the design of the proposed dwelling within the context of the varying ages and styles of properties along [site address] , this has not altered my findings in terms of the proposal’s impact on the rural character of the area.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to WDLP Policy NE4, which requires new development to positively contribute to landscape character, including the consideration of landscape context involving the local distinctiveness of the different natural and historic landscapes and character.

Forming part of the development plan, the NZCDPD contains policies relating to, amongst other things, achieving net zero carbon development, making buildings energy efficient, zero or low carbon energy sources and carbon offsetting. Despite the officer report highlighting concern over the submitted [name], no consultation response from the Council’s Energy Officer or a Statement of Case has been submitted detailing the Council’s position on this matter. Some of the proposed measures to achieve a carbon-positive status involve a fabric-first approach, roof overhangs, photovoltaic solar tiles, heat pumps and passive design.

[name] acknowledge the indicative nature of the submitted strategy, Policies NZC1, NZC2(A), NZC2(B) and NZC2(C) of the NZCDPD clearly set out their requirements. The submitted energy statement does not, for example, demonstrate that the stated minimum reduction in carbon emissions would be achieved, present the carbon savings achieved across each step of the energy hierarchy, and demonstrate a 10% improvement on the [name] 2021 Target for [name].

The NZCDPD gives technical guidance including an [name], which outlines the technical calculations required to be submitted in compliance with the document’s policies. Due to the detailed nature of the proposal these matters would need to have been considered by this stage and thereby the information would be available.

Consequently, I am not persuaded that the extent of these matters could be covered by planning condition, and the proposed development fails to comply with the policies of the NZCDPD.

Notable findings within the [name] (PEA) include the presence of a native hedgerow, which is listed as a habitat of principal importance and an ash tree that offers a suitable habitat for roosting bats. Habitats recorded on the site are assessed to provide optimal foraging opportunities, whilst surrounding habitats are likely to provide optimal foraging and commuting habitats for bats.

The PEA adds that the proposal would result in the loss of a small amount of ‘other neutral grassland’ that is likely to have a low impact on biodiversity due to its low ecological value. On the basis that identified habitats are retained and the implementation of recommendations including biodiversity enhancements, could be secured by condition, I am satisfied that there would be no significant harm on any protected species or their habitats.

Reference to the PEA having not been updated to reflect, amongst other things, record searches are noted. Nevertheless, there is limited information before me from the Council, including consultation responses from its Ecologist or a Statement of Case, to identify any harmful implications as a result of this. The PEA has been undertaken by a professional and appears to come to reasonable conclusions. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, and without any meaningful contradictory evidence, I see no reason to challenge or disagree with the conclusions of the PEA.

Schedule 7A of the Act introduced a statutory framework for [name] (BNG) and, with some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the [name] (BGC). This requires that at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met. It follows that the proposal is subject to the general BGC, as set out in the Act. An updated BNG Assessment shows that the proposal would deliver an increase in biodiversity in excess of 10%.

I am mindful that the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that it would generally be inappropriate for decision makers, when determining a planning application for a development subject to BNG, to refuse an application on the grounds that the BNG objective will not be met. However, the PPG continues that decision makers may need to consider more broadly whether the BNG condition is capable of being successfully discharged, with matters for consideration including the appropriate balance expected between on-site gains, off-site gains and the use of statutory biodiversity credits for the development, taking account of the [name].

I note the dispute between the parties surrounding the neutral grassland condition. However, due to the size of the remaining part of the site that is not subject to the development, I am content that there would be sufficient space to accommodate the required 10% increase in biodiversity. This would be a statutory requirement for later consideration should permission be granted.

To conclude, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on ecological interests and accord with [name] NE2 and NE3, which include the requirement to protect species of national and local importance as well as protect, enhance and/or restore habitat biodiversity.

The proposal would deliver a single dwelling to the housing supply and improve biodiversity. Nevertheless, due to the small scale of the proposal, and thereby the small scale of these associated benefits, I afford this moderate weight.

Whilst the proposed development would result in no adverse impacts on living conditions, highway safety, the adjoining public rights of way, water efficiency and air quality, a lack of harm in these respects are neutral considerations that weigh neither for nor against the appeal scheme.

I have concluded that the proposed development would be inappropriate development and would therefore, by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt. I have also found that there would be significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt. These are matters to which I give substantial weight as required by paragraph 153 of the Framework.

Furthermore, the appeal site would not be in a suitable location, in terms of access to services and facilities. In addition, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, as well as failing to demonstrate its ability to minimise carbon emissions. These factors weigh heavily against the appeal scheme.

The other considerations provide moderate benefits and do not have sufficient cumulative weight to clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal does not exist and it would be contrary to the Framework and WDLP Policy DS18.

Both parties agree that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, though it has not been indicated what the level is, and paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is applicable. However, paragraph 11 d) i) provides an exception where there are circumstances where the application of policies in the Framework to protect areas and assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal. Footnote 7 establishes that this includes the Green Belt. [name] have found that there would be harm to the Green Belt, the appeal proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

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