Appeal 6002601

The appeal is allowed and Permission in Principle (PiP) is granted for the construction of up to two new residential dwellings at [site address] , [site address] , Stapeley [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1579/PIP.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

PiP is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing development. The route has two stages. The first establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle. The second is [name] (TDC). This is where the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first stage. The scope of the considerations thereunder is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application should one for the PiP stage be successful. The Council did not issue a decision, since confirming the application would have been approved. Reasons therefore have been provided.

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 lies beyond the defined settlement boundary of Nantwich, within open countryside. It consists of a large, grassed parcel of land which is closely bordered by residential development to the west and south. New housing is under construction to the north. Open fields extend to the east. The southern boundary, adjacent [site address] , is defined by a row of protected trees. There is a mature beech tree near the centre of the site

Policy PG 6 of the Cheshire East Local Plan, Local Plan Strategy 2010 – 2030, 2017 and [name] 1 and H 1.1 of the Stapeley & Batherton Neighbourhood Development Plan, 2018, (NP) restrict development in the countryside, setting out a number of exceptions, none of which the proposal would meet. Policy H 5 of the NP directs development towards sites within or immediately adjoining the Nantwich settlement boundary, with the intention of reinforcing its role as a sustainable settlement while safeguarding the wider countryside.

The appeal site occupies a clear edge of settlement position and is closely related to the existing built-up area of Nantwich. It is visually and physically contained by built development on two sides, with new housing to the north. In this context, any development would be read as a small scale and natural extension to the adjoining residential area, rather than as isolated or sporadic in the countryside. Given the limited scale of the proposal and the containment provided by existing development and landscape features, the proposal would not result in undue encroachment into the countryside or undermine its character.

Proposed development would be within reasonably close proximity of the services and facilities of Nantwich and public transport provision is available within walking distance, supporting sustainable access to services and employment opportunities. The scale of development proposed would not lead to an unreasonable reliance on the private car, and opportunities for walking and cycling are available for day to day journeys. These factors indicate that the appeal site represents a sustainable location for residential development, appropriate to its edge‐of‐settlement context.

While the proposal would result in a low-density form of development, I am satisfied that the site is capable of accommodating two dwellings at a scale that would reflect the prevailing density of development in the immediate surroundings.

In practical planning harm terms therefore, the proposed development would sit squarely with the general aims of the Council’s spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy as it is explained by the aforementioned policies. Indeed, it would find some support in Policy H 5 of the NP in being immediately adjoining the settlement boundary on the information I have available. That said, and taken as a whole, there would be technical conflict with the development plan. Specifically, the policies of the spatial strategy as I have set them out above. Paragraph 11 of the Framework

The Council cannot currently demonstrate the supply of housing sites as required by the Framework. In such circumstances, paragraph 11(d)(ii) indicates that, where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The adverse impacts of the proposed development would amount solely to technical policy conflict. In a paragraph 11 situation directed by an undersupply of housing, and given the weight that would be afforded to said relevant policies as a consequence, I would ascribe limited weight to the adverse impacts.

The proposal would provide up to two dwellings that would make a modest but positive contribution to housing supply. There would also be time limited, but nevertheless positive, economic benefits associated with construction and future occupation. Given the small scale of the development, these benefits carry moderate weight. I am also mindful that small sites such as this often deliver housing more quickly than larger strategic allocations, which further supports its contribution to housing delivery. The scheme would promote sustainable patterns of development and make effective use of land, in accordance with the Framework’s stance on such, despite its countryside location in policy terms.

With this and my earlier findings mind, the adverse impacts of the proposals would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits thereof. When assessed against the Framework as a while, having particular regard to the key policies identified. The presumption in favour of sustainable development would thus apply to the appeal scheme.

The Council raised no objection to the proposal in principle on highways matters. Given the modest scale of development proposed, I am satisfied that the additional traffic likely to be generated by two dwellings would be limited. Matters relating to the detailed design of the access, visibility splays, pedestrian safety, speed mitigation measures and any necessary traffic assessment would be appropriately considered and secured, if required, at the TDC stage. As would those pertaining to privacy, wildlife and protected trees, including impacts on root protection areas from access works. The Council’s trees and landscape function appears to be satisfied works would be possible having regard to the aforementioned protected trees.

A covenant affecting land to the north of the appeal site restricts development. This is however a private legal matter and does not appear to include the proposed development site.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan. However, material considerations (the Framework) in this particular case indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.