Appeal 6002697

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. 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 permitted. 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.

An applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum net number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, the application form sets the minimum as two and the maximum as four.

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, with particular regard to whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the development strategy for the area and the accessibility to services and facilities.

The appeal site comprises the existing dwelling, [address], its garden and a strip of land which is part of a larger agricultural field to the rear of the house. The houses along the same side of the road as the appeal site are sporadic or in small groups. On the opposite side of the road are a row of bungalows, dormer bungalows, and a cul-de-sac of semi-detached houses.

A decision on whether to grant permission in principle must be made in accordance with the relevant policies in the development plan. The South Worcestershire Development Plan, adopted 2016, (the SWDP) identifies Bransford as a category 3 village, suitable for growth, but does not define a settlement boundary. Policy SWDP 2 seeks to safeguard the open countryside and part C of the policy seeks to strictly control new development. Paragraph 4 of the reasoned justification to Policy SWDP 2 advises that the high quality of the open countryside is an important attribute of the area.

The appeal site falls outside of the built-up area of Bransford and the proposal would not fall within any of the limited forms of development set out as exceptions to Policy SWDP 2. The location and land use of the proposal would, therefore, be contrary to the SWDP development strategy.

The Leigh and Bransford Neighbourhood Plan, Made 2022 (the NP), defines a development boundary for Bransford which includes the houses on the opposite side of the road but does not include No. 36 or the appeal site. The appeal site is, therefore, considered to be within open countryside. Policy LB/H/2 of the NP is consistent with Policy SWDP 2 in seeking to limit development beyond the boundaries. The proposal would not fall within any of the limited forms of development set out as exceptions to Policy LB/H/2 of the NP.

For the above reasons, the site is not suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, with regard to the development strategy for the area, contrary to Policy SWDP 2 of the SWDP and Policy LB/H/2 of the NP.

Policy SWDP 4 of the SWDP seeks to minimise the demand for travel, offer genuinely sustainable travel choices, and seeks to maximise opportunities for pedestrian and cycle linkages to the surrounding area. The appeal site lies next to the settlement boundary for Bransford, as identified in the NP.

The Leigh and [name] is not within safe walking distance of the site due to the lack of pavements, the narrow verges, and bends. Nevertheless, the main built-up part of Bransford, the bus stop and the services in the village are within walking distance and I noted that there is a consistent pavement along the opposite side of the road from the appeal site to the village. Furthermore, the layout of the front of the site could be designed to provide a safe point for pedestrians to cross the road to the footway on the opposite side.

However, future occupants of the development would need to leave Bransford for main shopping trips, education and higher order services and facilities such as health and medical facilities, and some places of employment or for certain leisure activities.

Whilst there are other services and facilities within the accepted 5km cycling distance for short/medium trips, there is no offroad cycle infrastructure and the lack of street lighting means cycling along the highway would not be comfortable, especially by less experienced or novice cyclists. Furthermore, I cannot be certain that the roads, especially the A4103, are safe for cyclists.

There is a bus stop within walking distance from the site. However, from the evidence before me the bus service is limited with no service before 9am on a weekday. This would not provide a reasonable alternative to the private car to access day to day facilities or employment. Although the appellant has provided details of school bus services, which pick up and drop off opposite the site, the public transport provision for general use is limited and would not represent a realistic choice of modes of transport for future occupants of the development.

Therefore, and even taking account that the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, the location of the appeal site would not offer genuinely sustainable travel choices to a range of nearby facilities and services. As such, occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be largely reliant on private vehicles.

For the above reasons, the proposal would not be an appropriate location or land use, having regard to access to services and facilities, it would, therefore, conflict with [name] 2 and SWDP 4 of the SWDP which, taken together, seek to minimise the demand for travel, offer genuinely sustainable travel choices, and seek to maximise opportunities for pedestrian and cycle linkages to the surrounding area.

Both main parties agree that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The officer report notes a supply of 2.06 years which is a substantial shortfall. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework therefore applies.

Paragraph 14 of the Framework advises that in situations where paragraph 11d) applies, the adverse impacts of allowing development that conflict with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits providing that: the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan less than five years from the date of the decision, and where the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement.

The NP is less than five years old and also contains policy LB/H/6 which identifies the housing need for the area and allocates a housing site on land off the A4103 at [name]. Consequently, both parts of paragraph 14 of the Framework are met.

[name] 2 and SWDP 4 of the SWDP and Policy LB/H/2 of the NP are the most relevant in considering the proposal. SWDP 2 and LB/H/2 both take a more restrictive approach to development in the countryside than the Framework. However, they are broadly consistent with the Framework as a whole in seeking to restrict development in the countryside. Moreover, the Framework advises that the planning system should be genuinely plan led. In this case the development would be at odds with the spatial strategy and undermine the confidence in the neighbourhood planning system.

For these reasons, I have given the conflict with the SWDP and NP policies significant weight in this appeal. Furthermore, significant weight is given to the adverse impacts of allowing a development that conflicts with the NP policies. Although, as noted by the Inspector in the appeal at The Grove1, this does not automatically put the brakes on housing development, paragraph 14 is an important material consideration in the overall planning balance. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and I attribute significant weight to this harm.

The appeal before me is materially different to both the appeal at [address] and the site approved by the Council, at [address], as both of those sites are closer to the services and facilities in Bransford. Furthermore, the appeal at [address] provided a financial contribution towards affordable housing which added weight to the benefits of that scheme.

The appeal on land off Peachy Lane2 adjoins a category 1 village and is, therefore, materially different to the appeal before me. Furthermore, I have no evidence that the [address] site was in conflict with a neighbourhood plan, even though it conflicts with the SWDP policies. The land off Malvern Road3 is also not in conflict with a neighbourhood plan.

The appeal west of Semington Road4 is for a substantially larger development of 100% affordable homes, on the edge of a market town and with biodiversity net gain that exceeds the minimum 10% requirement. The benefits were given very significant weight in the balance against paragraph 14 of the Framework and, in that regard, the [address] appeal is materially different to the appeal before me. Overall, even considering all of the appeals referred to by both main parties it is reasonable for me to give greater weight to the conflict with the NP.

The proposal would accord with the Framework which seeks to boost the supply of housing, recognises the contribution small sites can make to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and supports the rural economy. Moreover, the proposal would also provide economic benefits both during and post construction. I afford significant weight to the provision of these new houses. However, as only up to three new dwellings are proposed the benefit is limited when weighing the merits of the scheme. I therefore afford significant weight to the limited benefit the development would make to addressing the housing shortfall.

The Council has not raised any concerns with regard to the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Nevertheless, this is neutral in the planning balance. As too is the provision of policy and legislative compliant ecology enhancements.

On the other side of the balance the site would not provide good access to a range of services or facilities by modes other than the private car and the opportunities for walking, cycling and the use of public transport are limited. I, therefore, give the harm from the poor access to services and facilities moderate weight in my

For the above reasons, I find that the harm from the conflict with the development plan and the harm resulting from the poor access to services and facilities would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that would arise from the development, when assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole, including having regard to paragraph 14. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan, including the NP, and that conflict is not outweighed by other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.