Appeal 6002569

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for permission in principle for the erection of 4No. Residential dwellings’ at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , Huntingdon [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 25/01429/PIP

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

The PPG also states that the scope of considerations at the permission in principle stage is limited to location, land use, and the amount of development proposed. All other matters are addressed during the subsequent technical details consent application, should permission in principle be granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Article 5A(3)(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017, as amended by Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017, requires that any grant of permission in principle must specify the minimum and maximum number of dwellings permitted in principle. In this case, the range is between one and four dwellings.

In addition to the location plan, the appeal documents include an indicative block plan showing a dwellings with access from [site address] . This layout and access arrangement formed the basis of the Council’s consideration, and I have assessed the appeal on the same basis.

The application site is not located in a conservation area (CA). It is located a short distance to the south of the [site address] CA.

The appellant is identified as [name] which is the name detailed on the planning application form. The Council’s Decision Notice refers to the applicant being [name] and this deemed to be an error.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site is largely undeveloped pastureland, enclosed by boundary trees on three sides and located on the southern edge of the village of [site address] . Owing to its position and the pattern of surrounding development, the site has an edge‐of‐settlement character rather than forming part of the wider open countryside. I am therefore satisfied that development of the site would represent an extension of the existing village.

Policies LP2 and LP9 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 (the Local Plan) identify [site address] as a [name], where some housing development may be acceptable on sites well related to the built‐up area. However, because the appeal site lies outside the defined settlement boundary, Policy LP10, relating to development in the countryside, applies, even though the site is physically well related to the settlement as noted above. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy LP10, which seeks to restrict development in countryside locations.

The Council’s reason for refusal partly focuses on the absence of a safe and convenient pedestrian route into the village or to nearby bus stops, resulting in future occupants being heavily dependent on private motor vehicles to access services, facilities, and public transport. The appellant has referred me to recent residential development permissions on the opposite side of Kimbolton Road1, which is of similar scale, character, and relationship to the village. Having reviewed the information provided and viewed these sites, I agree that there are similarities. Notably, these developments share comparable access arrangements to the village core and similarly high levels of reliance on private car use.

I have also been directed to the existing character of the village, where formal, metalled roadside footpaths are not common. This is clearly a feature of [site address] , and formal footway provision is limited. The access arrangements for the proposed development would therefore be consistent with this established pattern.

[name] acknowledge that the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions vary between urban and rural areas, services and facilities within the settlement are limited. Paragraph 115 of the Framework requires that, when 1 Ref: 19/02549/FUL as amended by 22/00812/S73. Ref: 21/02754/FUL as amended by 23/02309/S73 and 24/00965/S73. determining planning applications, sustainable transport modes should be prioritised in light of the vision for the site, development type and location, and that safe and suitable access for all users should be achieved. The proposal therefore exhibits a degree of conflict with this provision of the Framework in this regard.

Nevertheless, occupiers of the proposed development would be able to make use of services such as GP surgeries, schools, and shops in larger neighbouring settlements, thereby supporting these facilities. The Council has acknowledged this in relation to other development proposals within the village, including application Ref: 19/02549/FUL as amended by 22/00812/S73. This is also consistent with paragraph 83 of the Framework, which recognises that development in one smaller settlement may support services in nearby villages.

It is likely that residents of the development would rely predominantly on the private car for most day‐to‐day needs; however, this reflects the established pattern of development in the area. Although a limited bus service operates within the village, providing some public transport access to neighbouring settlements, overall the development conflicts with the Framework’s locational guidance for housing.

Given the site’s relationship with the existing and growing built‐up area of the village, it occupies a transitional position between the village and the surrounding countryside but remains physically connected to the settlement. The site is well screened by vegetation, and residential development could be integrated into the surrounding area through landscaping and design measures, which would be determined at the technical details consent stage. Although the character of the site would inevitably change, I am not persuaded that this change would be inherently harmful and therefore contrary to Policy LP12 which amongst other things requires that new development will be expected to be well designed based upon a thorough understanding of constraints and appraisal of the site's context, delivering attractive, usable and long lasting buildings and spaces.

No detailed information has been provided regarding the potential impact of development on the existing boundary trees at this permission‐in‐principle stage. It is therefore not possible to reach conclusions on this matter, which would need to be addressed at the technical details stage.

Overall, while the proposal conflicts with Policy LP10 of the Local Plan, I do not find conflict with Policy LP2, which recognises, among other matters, that some housing may be permitted on sites within dispersed small settlements in order to support the vitality of these communities and to provide flexibility and diversity in the housing supply. The proposal would represent an extension of a small settlement. I do not find conflict with Policy LP12, and I also find no conflict with paragraphs 135 and 187 of the Framework.

The appeal site lies close to, but outside, the [site address] Conservation Area (CA), where there is a statutory duty to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The area is characterised by traditional buildings that reflect the historic development of the village.

It would be possible for the proposed development to be designed in a way that has a neutral impact on the CA. This would, however, depend on matters to be addressed at the technical details stage, including the scale of the dwelling and the use of sympathetic materials to ensure it sits comfortably within its surroundings. On this basis, the proposal would have a neutral effect on the CA. This conclusion accords broadly with the comments of the Officer report.

The provision of 4 dwellings would make a meaningful contribution to housing delivery, this contribution must be considered in the context of a significant district‐wide housing shortfall. The Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five‐year supply of deliverable housing sites, with only a 3.88‐year supply identified, and this must be considered alongside the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, as set out in paragraph 61 of the Framework.

The associated local economic benefits arising from the development, both during the construction period and once occupied, would be modest.

The Council accepts that paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. As the appeal site does not lie within a protected area and does not involve an asset of particular importance as defined in footnote 7, paragraph 11(d)(ii) applies. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development is triggered. Under this presumption, the policies most important for determining the application are considered out‐of‐date, and planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when the Framework is read as a whole.

The proposal would deliver up to four additional dwellings in a district where there is an acknowledged shortfall in housing land supply. This contribution is not insignificant in numerical terms and carries significant weight given the scale of the shortfall.

Although the scheme conflicts with Policy LP10 of the Local Plan and presents some tension with the Framework in respect of its location, several considerations moderate the weight of this conflict. The site relates well to the existing village and nearby development; essential services and facilities are accessible within neighbouring settlements; and there is a substantial district‐wide housing shortfall. These combined factors reduce the overall harm associated with the locational conflict. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the development could be designed and accessed in a manner consistent with the Local Plan’s design and highways policies, as well as the relevant provisions of the Framework, with detailed matters to be addressed at the technical details consent stage.

In summary, while I have identified some conflict with elements of the Framework regarding the locational sustainability of development, the resulting harms are moderate. These harms do not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits of delivering up to four additional dwellings, particularly in the context of the recognised shortfall in housing supply.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal site is suitable for the proposed residential use at the permission‐in‐principle stage having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development. The matters identified by the Council do not amount to reasons for withholding permission in principle. Detailed considerations relating to access, design, layout, and appearance are appropriately reserved for consideration at the subsequent technical details consent stage.

The adverse impacts of granting permission in principle would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework’s policies as a whole.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan but material considerations, particularly the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the Framework, outweigh this conflict. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and permission in principle granted.