Appeal 6002561

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2 dwellings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 25/0454/PIP.

An application for costs has been made by Henderson Homes Ltd against Cheshire East Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

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. In this instance, the Council does not object to the proposed amount of development. The reason for refusal specified that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and highlights concerns with the appeal site’s location. Within its Statement of Case the Council has also highlighted a concern with flood risk and contends that a sequential test should be undertaken.

Taking the above into account, the main issue of the appeal is whether the appeal site is suitable for residential development having regard to the site’s location; with particular regard to the Green Belt, access to services and facilities, and the aim to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. 1 Planning Practice Guidance, Permission in principle, Paragraph: 001 [name]: 58-001-20180615

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.

Policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030, July 2017 (CELPS) 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. Poynton is not identified as an infill village. The Policy goes on to explain that proposals outside the village infill boundaries will not be considered to be limited infilling in villages, when applying CELPS Policy PG3.

The appeal site is outside of the defined infill boundaries and does not accord with any of the specified 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 judgment2 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.

Within the Committee Report the Council state that it is accepted that the site is located in a village for the purposes of paragraph 154(e) of the Framework. My observations on site do not lead me to an alternative conclusion. As such, only an assessment as to whether the proposal constitutes limited infilling is required to determine whether the proposal complies with the exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt specified in paragraph 154(e).

The term “limited infilling” is not defined within the Framework. However, SADPD Policy PG10 defines limited infilling as the development of a relatively small gap between existing buildings. The Tate judgment3 established that whether a proposal constitutes limited infilling will always be a question of fact and planning judgement for the decision maker.

The appeal site fronts onto [address]. Although there is not a consistent building line, there is residential development fronting [address] on both sides and opposite the appeal site. Immediately behind the site, in a south easterly direction, is open countryside. However, the settlement extends further eastward along [address], and the appeal site partially adjoins the rear boundary of a property on this road. Furthermore, the garden of [address] extends to the 2 [name] v SSCLG, Gravesham Borough Council [2015] [name] 195 3 R (Tate) v Northumberland County Council v [name] [2018] [name] 1519 full depth of the appeal site. As such, the appeal site does not encroach further into the open countryside than the existing development on either side. On balance, I consider that the proposed development would infill a gap between existing development.

Development on this side of [address] is spacious when compared to other development in the surrounding area. The appeal site’s frontage extends to approximately 60m. Nonetheless, it is similar in size to the frontage of 1, 3, 5, and [address] combined. Accordingly, it appears as a modest gap in development on this side of the road. Furthermore, the development of up to 2 dwellings would represent a very limited increase in the supply of houses within Poynton as a whole. Taking the above into account, I consider that the proposed development is limited in scale.

Overall, I consider that the proposal would represent limited infilling in a village. Consequently, it would accord with the exception to inappropriate development specified in paragraph 154(e) of the Framework. [name] have found that the proposed development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, there is no need for me to assess it against paragraph 155 of the Framework.

The Lee Valley Regional Park Authority judgment4 established that development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt is not to be regarded as harmful to the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes of including land within it. In light of this judgment and my findings above, it is not necessary for me to assess the proposal’s effect on the openness or the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

The appeal site is a moderate distance from Poynton Town Centre. The table in paragraph 10.65 of the Committee Report clearly demonstrates that the appeal site is in proximity to several services and facilities. Whilst there isn’t a footpath immediately outside of the site, there is one next to the site and opposite. The roads between the appeal site and Poynton Town Centre are well lit and suburban in character. As such, future occupiers would be able to safely walk or cycle to the Town Centre or to access services and facilities elsewhere. There is also a bus stop close to the site which provides hourly services.

Accordingly, future occupiers would be able to use sustainable transport modes to access the services and facilities necessary to support their everyday needs. Overall, I consider that occupiers of the proposed development would have good access to services and facilities.

Parts of the site are at a medium or high risk of surface water flooding and there have been several flooding events in the area. The Framework is clear that a sequential approach should be taken with the aim of steering new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. Paragraph 175 of the Framework outlines that a sequential test would not be necessary where a site specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no development would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source. 4 R (Lee Valley Regional Park Authority) v Epping Forest District Council and Valley Grown Nurseries Ltd [2016] [name] 404

Notwithstanding this, the application subject to this appeal is for permission in principle. PPG5 is clear that only the in principle matters of location, land use and amount of development should be considered. A detailed flood risk assessment would fall outside of the scope of a permission in principle application as it would need to refer to details of a proposed development which are not subject to approval.

As there are parts of the site which are not at a medium or high risk of flooding, the proposed development could be directed to these areas. I am satisfied that up to two dwellings could be accommodated in the low risk flood area. In my mind, a lack of a sequential test is not a reason to withhold permission in principle. The application for technical details consent would need to be supported by a detailed flood risk assessment. Depending on the outcome of that assessment, a sequential test may be required. I am satisfied following this process that development would be directed to areas with the lowest flood risk.

Overall, I conclude that the appeal site is suitable for residential development having regard to the site’s location; with particular regard to the Green Belt, access to services and facilities, and the aim to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding. As set out above, the proposal would conflict with CELPS Policy PG3 and SADPD Policy PG10, but material considerations indicate a decision should be made contrary to these policies. The proposal would comply with CELPS policies SD1 and SD2, where they indicate that development should prioritise the most accessible and sustainable locations, amongst other matters.

The grade II listed Waterloo6 is in proximity to the appeal site. Under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have a statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building, its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The significance of Waterloo includes its historic use as a beam-engine house. It is of an unusual design and includes multiple gables fronting onto [address]. The design is likely to be linked to its historic functional use.

The setting of the building comprises of the open countryside to the rear and one side, which allows the historical significance of the building to be appreciated in mid-distance views. There are 2 cottages located between the appeal site and Waterloo, albeit Waterloo’s garden wraps around them and adjoins the appeal site. The cottages are older than most nearby houses and were previously occupied by workers of the mine. These cottages combined with Waterloo are remnant features of the area’s mining past.

There are large parts of the appeal site which could be developed and would not alter the mid-distance views of Waterloo or the relationship between the cottages and Waterloo. Subject to detailed designs which would form part of an application for technical details consent, the proposed development could preserve the setting of Waterloo. 5 Planning Practice Guidance, Permission in Principle, Paragraph: 012 [name]: 58-012-20180615 6 List entry No. 1232382

I note that trees within the site are subject to a tree preservation order (TPO). The TPO does not preclude the trees from being pruned or felled, rather it prevents works to these trees without prior consent. Any proposed works to these trees could be considered as part of an application for technical details consent, which would be subject to approval by the Council. The presence of a TPO is not a reason to withhold permission in principle.

Concerns have been raised with regard to the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; living conditions; protected species; electricity infrastructure; and foul drainage; amongst other matters. These matters are not determinative at this stage and should be addressed within an application for technical details consent.

Similarly, an application for technical details consent would need to demonstrate that the proposed development could be safely accessed. Furthermore, there is no cogent evidence that up to 2 dwellings would have a harmful effect on highway safety, with particular regard to an increase in vehicle movements or through the loss of roadside parking.

There is no substantive evidence that services, such as school and dentists, in the area are at or above capacity. A modest increase in the local population through the construction of up to 2 dwellings would have a negligible effect on the capacity of these services.

Any works required to remediate contaminated land could be identified within the application for technical details consent and conditioned as part of any resultant planning permission. As such, the potential presence of contaminated land would not be a reason to withhold permission in principle. Likewise, The Coal Authority has confirmed that the site falls within the Development Low Risk Area. Therefore, historic mining activity in the local area would also not be a reason to withhold permission in principle.

A previous application7 for outline planning permission for residential development at the appeal site was withdrawn. The withdrawal of that application does not affect my assessment on the acceptability of the appeal proposal.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would be acceptable without providing affordable housing. Also, in this instance there is not a requirement within either the development plan or the Framework to consider previously developed land ahead of the appeal site.

I do not accept that allowing this development would set a precedence for further development along [address]. Instead, all proposals are considered in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Moreover, there is no legislative requirement which would compel the appellant to apply for planning permission due to the complexity of the case.

The planning system is primarily concerned with the public interest. The effect of the proposed development on house values is a matter of private interest and has little influence on my assessment of the acceptability of the appeal proposal. 7 Planning application Ref. 22/1483M

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed and permission in principle should be granted.