Appeal 6002668

The appeal is dismissed.

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. It is only at the technical details consent stage where a planning permission can be granted. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

I have amended the description of development slightly to refer to the range of dwellings as provided on the application form.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy and the effect on character and appearance.

The appeal site is an agricultural field which is situated on the northern edge of the village of Apperley. Policy SD10 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] [name] 2011 – 2031 (the JCS) sets out the strategy for new residential development in the area. Outside of the main growth locations, part 4 of the policy allows the provision of housing subject to certain criteria. This includes the provision of infill development within existing built-up areas of villages within Tewkesbury Borough. However, in this instance, while the appeal site adjoins existing development to the south and west, it is bounded by open countryside on its northern and eastern sides. As such, there is no real sense of enclosure, and the proposal would therefore not represent infill development in accordance with the policy.

Policy RES4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan 2011 – 2031 (the BP) builds upon the strategy set out within the JCS. It enables residential development within or adjacent to the built-up area of rural settlements providing, among other things, that it complements the form of the settlement.

At the northernmost point of the village of Apperley, built form is limited to the linear development that exists along [address]. There is a sense of verdancy in this area which adds to the rural character of the village. The undeveloped nature of the appeal site immediately to the east of [address] forms an important part of the transition from the built form of the settlement to the open countryside beyond, and it therefore contributes strongly to the character of the surrounding area.

The proposal before me is for permission in principle and therefore the appearance, layout and scale of the development is currently unknown. However, it is abundantly clear that the provision of three to five dwellings on the site would add a significant amount of built form to an area where there is currently none. Given the character of the immediate area, and the important role that the site plays within that, it is absolutely inevitable that the proposal would greatly erode the sense of transition that currently exists and would therefore provide a much harsher edge to the village at its northernmost point. The verdancy of the surroundings would also be reduced.

I acknowledge that there is existing mature planting on the edges of the site which would reduce views of the development to some degree. There could also be potential for further planting and landscaping through the technical details consent stage. However, the proposed built form would still be readily apparent, particularly from the access road off Apperley Park. As such, any existing or proposed planting would not sufficiently mitigate the harm that I have identified. The proposal would therefore not complement the form of the settlement as required by BP Policy RES4.

As a result, I conclude that the development would not be in a suitable location, having regard to the Council’s spatial strategy and the effect on character and appearance. It would therefore conflict with [name] SP2, SD4 and SD10, as well as [name] RES3, RES4 and RES5. Taken together, the relevant aspects of these policies seek to ensure that new development is sustainably located and that it is well designed and preserves character and appearance.

From the evidence before me, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the current figure being just 3.14 years. In such circumstances the test set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is engaged.

The proposal is contrary to the objectives of the Council’s spatial strategy as well as policies that pertain to character and appearance. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole.

The aforementioned policies are broadly consistent with the aims of the Framework, notably, in respect of seeking to promote development in sustainable locations with genuine sustainable travel choices while also requiring development to be well designed. Consequently, I have given considerable weight to the conflict with the development plan.

The appeal proposal would make a small but nonetheless positive contribution towards housing supply in an area with a significant housing shortfall. It would also provide some social and economic benefits associated with the construction and subsequent occupation of the proposed dwellings, including the potential for future residents to support wider services. The homes could also be secured as energy efficient self-build homes, while the proposal could provide further benefits in relation to biodiversity. I have considered Paragraph 61 of the Framework which seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes. I have also considered Paragraph 73 of the Framework, which recognises the importance of small sites in meeting the housing requirement of the area. Still, given the scale of development, I give these benefits modest weight.

With regards to the conflict with the spatial strategy, it is clear that there would be no ‘on the ground harm’ arising from the proposal. This is because future occupiers would be able to access some services and facilities in the village on foot, including a primary school. Importantly, other facilities needed for everyday living, such as secondary schools and shops, could be accessed in a sustainable fashion by utilising bus services to Gloucester or Tewkesbury.

However, while acknowledging that this an application for permission in principle, I still find that the identified harm to character and appearance would be significant. This would be the case irrespective of the final number of dwellings and their eventual design.

Therefore, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, I find that the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The appeal scheme therefore does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The appeal site is located within the zone of influence of the Cotswolds Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation. The lack of mitigation formed a further reason for refusal on the decision notice. However, as I am dismissing the appeal, there is no need for me to consider this matter further.

In conclusion, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.