Appeal 6002542

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

As set out above there are two appeals on this site, both seek permission for the demolition of the existing stables and barn and the erection of four new dwellings. Appeal A is an application for planning permission, and I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice as it is more succinct. Appeal B concerns an application for Permission in Principle. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with both in a single decision letter.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that Permission in Principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The Permission in Principle (PiP) consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second ([name]) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for PiP is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a Appeal Decisions 6002542 & 6002544 subsequent [name] (TDC) application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The appellant has applied for PiP for 4 dwellings. The PPG says that the amount of development must be expressed as a range, but the appellant has not expressed, or invited me to consider, any other number of dwellings. I am also mindful that if I were to now consider a different number of dwellings it might raise issues of procedural unfairness to any other party who might wish to have expressed a view on an alternative range. I have therefore interpreted the description of development as being for a maximum of 4 dwellings and a minimum of 4 dwellings.

The main issues for Appeal A are: (a) Whether or not the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; (b) The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; (c) Compliance with the biodiversity net gain requirements; (d) The effect of the proposed development on archaeological assets; and (e) If the proposed development is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development.

The main issue for Appeal B is whether the site is suitable for residential development given its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) stipulates that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate unless it accords with one of the exceptions set out in the Framework. It states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and that any harm should be given substantial weight.

The proposals have been considered by both main parties under the exemptions set out in paragraphs 154(g) and 155. None of the other exceptions to inappropriate development set out in the Framework were identified by the main parties as being relevant to the proposals. Paragraph 154(g)

Both parties agree that the site can be considered as previously developed land. The key issue is therefore whether substantial harm to openness would be caused to the Green Belt by either development. Substantial harm is not defined in the Framework and so requires a planning judgement. Appeal Decisions 6002542 & 6002544

The existing stable buildings are wooden structures with shallow pitched roofs. Despite the length of the building, its height helps to dissipate some of its visual presence. In addition, the surrounding landform assists in minimising the building’s prominence still further when it is viewed from the nearby public rights of way. The barn is a taller building and its roof in particular is visible above that of the stables. However, when seen from public vantage points much of the rest of the building is hidden from view by the stables.

The sand school and hardstanding are evident on site. However, they are both low in height and set back from public vantages. As such, they do not significantly affect the contribution the site makes to either the spatial or visual aspects of openness.

In contrast, the proposal under Appeal A would introduce four single-storey dwellings served by areas of hardstanding. These would have a greater footprint and volume than the buildings they would replace. They would also introduce buildings onto parts of the site where there has previously been none, thereby extending built form both away from the remaining buildings and closer to public vantage points.

The houses would be visually prominent features when seen from the public rights of way, as they would sit on higher land than the rights of way. Despite being single storey with a simple appearance, four houses would clearly be to the detriment of the site’s openness. The site’s openness would be further eroded by boundary treatments, the parking of private motor vehicles and the proliferation of residential paraphernalia about the site. There are no outbuildings proposed and so there would either be a need for additional storage buildings to accommodate items of garden paraphernalia such as tables, chairs, gardening equipment, children’s play equipment etc or they would become semi-permanent features.

I have had regard to the proposed landscaping which has been submitted as part of the appeal. Nonetheless, the development would still constitute a visual expansion into the Green Belt which would substantially harm its openness. I am also mindful that the landscaping would generally be a form of mitigation of harm rather than an enhancement of the landscape. In any event the purpose of landscaping is to integrate a development into its surroundings, not to hide something which is otherwise unacceptable.

However, even allowing for the landscaping to soften the edges of the site, and acknowledging that the existing vegetation on the boundaries would provide some screening from longer distance views, new dwellings in an area that is currently open would still result in a substantial reduction in both of spatial and visual openness.

I have very limited information before me in respect of the scale of any activities associated with the use of the site. From my site visit there did not appear to be any commercial livery operations taking place and indeed, the 2022 appeal decision indicates that the business was wound up in 2016. Therefore, in reality, I cannot conclude that the proposal would result in any meaningful reductions in comings and goings or visual site activity.

With regard to Appeal B, I have taken the layout drawing to be indicative acknowledging that the issue of layout would be considered at the TDC stage. Nonetheless, a development of the sort envisioned by the proposal would in reality Appeal Decisions 6002542 & 6002544 have a limited number of possible layouts and so to a large extent is likely to be similar to the indicative one before me. The houses in Appeal A are single storey and so it is unlikely that four houses in Appeal B would be significantly lower than them. Similarly, although the exact size of the houses would be determined at the TDC stage, one of the benefits of the scheme is said to be that the houses would provide family accommodation and so would of necessity need to be of a reasonable size and bulk to fulfil that criteria. Aspects such as car parking and garden paraphernalia would be equally applicable to four houses under Appeal B regardless of their precise details. Landscaping would be determined at the TDC stage but taking all of this into account, my findings in respect of Appeal A are also applicable to Appeal B.

Overall, I find, when taking the spatial and visual effects of how the site is likely to be laid out and the scale of the proposed built form and the intensification of the residential use together, that there would be a substantial and demonstrable loss of openness. The redevelopment of the site in the manner proposed would fail to keep land permanently open. Accordingly, the spatial and visual aspects of the site’s openness would be substantially reduced and the effects on openness would be harmful.

The proposals would therefore be inappropriate development. Paragraph 155

I have had regard to the PPG at Paragraph: 005 [name]: 64-005-20250225 which provides considerations for informing judgements as to whether land is grey belt and the contribution they make to Green Belt purposes. I also note that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land.

Therefore, even if I were to agree that the land could be considered as grey belt and that the development would not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt and meet a demonstrable need for the type of development proposed here, I would still need to consider the test in Paragraph 155 (c). This requires the development to be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to Framework paragraphs 110 and 115.

I sought the Council’s views on this issue as it was not specifically addressed. The Council concluded the site would not be a sustainable location, noting the site’s PTAL rating of 0. The appellant was given an opportunity to respond. I have taken their submissions into account as well as the information originally submitted on this issue.

I have been referred to the previous appeal decisions on the site for one and two dwellings. I have had regard to the appellant’s observations on the sustainable transport options but nonetheless find that the site has significant limitations with regard to sustainable transport, as were articulated in the previous appeal. I have not been presented with any substantive evidence to indicate that the site’s access to sustainable transport options has improved in the intervening period. The site still has the lowest PTAL rating. Similarly, the proposals have not identified any opportunities for promoting walking, cycling and public transport use.

I acknowledge that in the previous appeal decision the site’s location was not found to be an impediment to those developments. However, they were for one and two dwellings and the Inspector was cognisant of the limited scale of the Appeal Decisions 6002542 & 6002544 schemes. The proposals before me, as a minimum, double the number of proposed dwellings and thus the likely number of journeys to be undertaken by private motor vehicles from the site. Increasing such journeys would not help to reduce congestion and emissions, nor improve air quality and public health. The uplift may not be large in numerical terms but would nonetheless make the development sufficiently different from the previous submissions such that it would not be directly comparable.

It is likely, therefore, that the private car would perform a significant role in enabling any future occupiers of the proposals to access facilities and services, acknowledging that some such journeys to fulfil day-to-day needs would not necessarily be lengthy. Nevertheless, they would not be easily accessible by means other than the private car due to the limitations of the infrastructure in the immediate environs of the appeal site. This would not represent the maximisation of sustainable transport solutions.

I am mindful of the rural context of the appeal site, and the advice set out at Framework paragraph 110, which acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Nonetheless, it also maintains the requirement to actively manage growth to support sustainable travel and prioritise non-car modes. Furthermore, the appeal site would not be easily accessible by sustainable means for all, nor would safe access to the development be provided for all users, as advised at Framework paragraph 115.

In my view, the previous proposals or nearby dwellings with similar accessibility constraints do not justify the current proposals for additional dwellings and journeys or demonstrate compliance with paragraph 155 (c) of the Framework.

I have also considered the appeal decisions referenced by the appellant. The Keepers Corner site was noted as being in a small built-up area that benefited from a handful of services. The Inspector in that case also took account of the type of development proposed in reaching a finding. The site between [name] and Harkaway was for a single dwelling, which is materially different to multi dwelling schemes. Thus, those decisions do not lead me to a different conclusion.

For this reason, I conclude that the proposals would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would not meet the exception allowed under Paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Openness is not a consideration under paragraph 155 of the Framework and would therefore normally be considered separately where a scheme is found to be inappropriate development. However, in considering the proposals under paragraph 154(g) I have already found there to be substantial harm to openness and thus I do not need to repeat the assessment.

I have found the proposals to represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Furthermore, the proposals would harm openness, which as the Framework explains, is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. As per Paragraph 153 of the Framework, any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, attracts substantial weight. Appeal Decisions 6002542 & 6002544

The proposals are also contrary to Policy DM5 of the [name] 2012 (KCS) and Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) which, amongst other things, require the Green Belt to be protected from inappropriate development and that development accords with national guidance.

Any approval would be subject to the statutory pre-commencement biodiversity gain condition (‘the condition’) as set out in Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act). The substantive information before me indicates that a combination of landscaping on the site and off-site biodiversity credits would be capable of meeting the mandatory requirements for a minimum of 10% BNG, in accordance with the statutory framework.

The statutory BNG condition is a matter the appellant would need to address directly with the Council. It would be for the Council to consider any Biodiversity Gain Plan and development could not begin until it was approved. As such, I am as satisfied as I can be, that ‘the condition’ is capable of being discharged. I therefore find that the Appeal A proposal would not conflict with the requirements of the Act or Policy DM6 of the KCS or Policy G6 of the LP which require, amongst other things, that new developments protect and promote biodiversity and secure a biodiversity net gain.

Following the Council’s decision, a further desk based archaeological assessment has been undertaken. This concluded that although the likelihood of discovering archaeological remains was low, if they were to exist, they could have significance. The report concluded that a watching brief would be the most appropriate way forward.

I have no reason to question the content of the assessment, which appears to address the Council’s stated concerns regarding when the initial archaeological assessment was undertaken and that it did not directly consider the development the subject of this appeal.

In view of the above, even if I were to consider that a scheme of investigation were preferable to just a watching brief, I am satisfied that in the case of Appeal A, the matter could be sufficiently addressed by planning conditions.

On this basis, I consider that there would be no conflict with Policy DM12 of the KCS or Policy HC1 of the LP which require, amongst other things, that new developments have appropriate regard to heritage assets and avoid harm to them.

The appellant indicates the current supply of deliverable housing land to be 1.48 years, a figure the Council does not dispute. In a situation where the supply is so low, and there is particular demand for family sized housing, four additional family houses attract considerable weight.

The developments would have economic benefits both during construction and upon occupation albeit they would be limited by virtue of the scale of the development. The proposals would also provide a biodiversity net gain allowing for ongoing ecological enhancements, which attracts positive weight. Appeal Decisions 6002542 & 6002544

The appellant draws my attention to other appeal decisions and in particular the buildings adjacent to the site, which are said to give it an edge of settlement character. Whilst the whole of the site can be considered as PDL, a significant portion of it is devoid of buildings. Indeed, on my visit I observed this and got a real and tangible sense of spaciousness within the site even though there was fixed surface infrastructure such as the hardstanding and sand school. Furthermore, I find that part of the site also encompasses countryside characteristics such as grassland and when not in use, tranquillity.

All of this gives the appeal site a real sense of rurality. This is enhanced by the rolling countryside to the west and that urban or suburban influences such as Epsom to the east are screened out by mature trees/woodland. When taken with my previous observations on the site’s openness I find the site to have a rural character that does not appear as an edge of settlement site. As such, I do not find the comparisons with these other appeal decisions to be sufficiently robust and so lead me to a different conclusion as regards the site and area’s characteristics.

I have also had regard to the details presented to me on the previous schemes and permission for housing. I find there to be a significant difference between a permission for a single dwelling, despite its curtilage and replacement stables, and the schemes before me for four dwellings. The extent and spread of built form across the site would not be comparable to the previous permissions and, notwithstanding that the Framework threshold has changed in the intervening period, my assessment is broadly consistent with the findings of the previous appeal decision for two dwellings on the site.

The design of the houses was considered acceptable for a rural location, noting that for Appeal B, design would be determined at the TDC stage. An appropriate design would be necessary for any development to be considered acceptable and would be a requirement of the development plan. As such, it is a neutral matter in both appeals.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. It goes on to say that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances which will not exist unless that harm, and any other harm, are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I have concluded that the appeal schemes would be inappropriate development and would, by definition, harm the Green Belt. As part of this assessment, I have also found harm to its openness.

The lack of housing supply is of considerable weight but the other considerations I have found are of more limited or moderate weight in favour of the proposal. Consequently, these considerations, along with all other matters presented, do not clearly outweigh the identified harm to the Green Belt, either individually or collectively, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Appeal Decisions 6002542 & 6002544

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, in conjunction with footnote 7, states that planning permission should therefore 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. I find the totality of the Green Belt harm provides the strong reason for refusing the proposed developments. Consequently, paragraph 11 d) ii of the Framework is not engaged. The proposals do not therefore benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework.

The proposed developments each conflict with the development plan when it is considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harm and associated development plan conflicts.

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