Appeal 6002702

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the erection of 1 to 2 dwellings at [name] of [address], Stonely, [site address] , Cambridgeshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01532/PIP, dated 11th August 2025.

I have taken the site address from the appeal form as this more accurately describes the location of the appeal site.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The 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’ (TDC) 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. Permission in principle can be sought for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum net number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for one to two dwellings on the appeal site.

The main parties have referred to an emerging Local Plan. However, I have not been supplied with a copy and the Council’s reasons for refusal do not identify any conflict with the emerging Local Plan. I also have limited information on its status. I have therefore based my decision on the current adopted development plan.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, land use and the amount of development proposed, with particular regard to: • relevant development plan policies for development in the countryside; • access to services and facilities; and • the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy LP2 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036 (HLP), amongst other things, seeks to ensure that new development is concentrated towards locations which provide, or have the potential to provide, the most comprehensive range of services and facilities and protect the character of existing settlements while recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the surrounding countryside. The site is situated to the rear of properties along [address] in the village of Stonely, which is identified by Policy LP9 as a [name].

Policy LP9 supports development within the built-up area of small settlements, subject to certain criteria being met. The policy also provides conditional support for development proposals on land well-related to the built-up area where they accord with specific opportunities allowed for through other policies of the plan. The appellant accepts that the site lies outside of the built-up area of Stonely but contends that the appeal site relates more to the built-up area than to the surrounding countryside and thus should be considered against Policy LP9. I do not agree.

The appeal site clearly relates to part of a wider, undeveloped, agricultural field that is separated from nearby residential development by established hedgerows and trees. Despite the presence of residential development on either side of [name] to the north-east and examples of development extending a similar distance back from [address], the site has a distinctly different character and appearance to the built environment of the settlement and relates more to the surrounding countryside. This conclusion is drawn irrespective of the wider field having been included in the Council’s Land Availability Assessment. Policy LP10 therefore applies.

Policy LP10 restricts development in the countryside to limited and specific opportunities as provided for in other policies of the plan, and subject to criteria relating to loss of land of agricultural value, the character and beauty of the countryside and effects from noise, odour, light and other impacts. As a scheme for market housing, both parties agree that the proposal does not meet any of the limited and specific opportunities allowed for development in the countryside through other policies of the plan. Consequently, the appeal scheme fails to meet the requirements of Policy LP10.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal site would not be a suitable location for residential development having regard to relevant development plan policies for development in the countryside. This conflicts with Policy LP10 of the HLP insofar as it seeks to ensure that development in the countryside will be restricted to the limited and specific opportunities as provided for in other policies of the Local Plan. However, I find no conflict with Policy LP9 given it contains criteria for development which are not considered to be applicable in this case.

Stonely village does not benefit from any services or facilities itself but is relatively close to the larger settlement of Kimbolton, which is defined by Policy LP2 as a local [name] which meets many of the day-to-day needs of its residents and those of other nearby settlements.

Kimbolton benefits from several services and facilities which include schools, a medical centre, church, dental practice, village hall, pubs, convenience store and cafés/restaurants. All these services and facilities are within an approximately 20- minute walking distance from the appeal site, which, save for the stretch along [name], could be accessed by existing footways. However, the footway along [address] is somewhat narrow and unlit in sections and the distance would be greater than 800m1. As a result, walking to Kimbolton is unlikely to be the most attractive option for all and in all circumstances. Nevertheless, it would provide a feasible option for some and therefore is one alternative to private vehicle travel. Kimbolton would also be feasibly accessible by cycle, but the lack of a designated cycle lane would likely limit the attractiveness of this option for all.

In terms of public transport, there are bus stops on [address] approximately 300m from the appeal site which are accessible via the [address] footway. Despite the Council’s concerns, the evidence indicates that these provide relatively frequent services throughout the day, six days a week, to larger service centres such as Huntingdon and [site address] . As the bus stops would be within a walkable distance, they would provide a realistic alternative to the use of private vehicles.

I note that to access the footway on [address], occupiers of the new dwellings would have to travel along [name], which has no footway and is unlit. However, this would be for a relatively short distance and given the nature and volume of traffic using [name], this alone is unlikely to be a significant deterrent to utilising sustainable transport methods. Nevertheless, I accept that given the distance to Kimbolton, there would likely still be some need and may well be a preference for future occupiers to travel by private car to fulfil some of their day-to-day needs. However, journeys into Kimbolton by car would be relatively short and the vehicle movements associated with up to two dwellings is likely to be relatively low.

Irrespective of this, despite some compromises, the fact that the development would be located within walking distance to public transport opportunities and could access a range of services and facilities on foot, points to the fact that future occupiers would not be wholly reliant on the use of a private car and would be able to support local facilities in Kimbolton. Paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) explains that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas. The appeal site is in a rural area and in this context, I find that the appeal site would benefit from a reasonable level of accessibility and future occupants would have a reasonable choice of sustainable transport modes to access day-to-day facilities and services. 1 The National Design Guide (2021) (NDG) defines walkable developments as locations where local facilities are within walking distance, generally considered to be no more than a ten-minute walk (800m radius).

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude in this particular case, that the appeal site would be a suitable location for residential development having regard to its access to services and facilities. This complies with Policy LP2 of the HLP, Paragraphs 110 and 117 of the Framework and Parts M1 and M2 of the NDG which, amongst other things, promote development in locations with access to a range of services and facilities, the promotion of sustainable modes of travel and access to public transport. While the Council has referred to Policy LP9, given my conclusions above about the location of the site in the countryside, this policy is not determinative in my consideration of this main issue.

The appeal site relates to part of a larger agricultural field to the south-west of 69A and [address], which are accessed via [name]. The boundaries of the site along this lane and with No 71 are defined by hedgerows and a belt of trees exists to the north-west which provides some separation from nearby developments. The site is otherwise open to the rest of the wider field.

Development along [address] follows a predominately linear pattern with dwellings typically fronting the highway with similar plot depths and the countryside beyond, separated by established hedgerows and trees. However, an exception to this is No 71 adjacent to the appeal site which has been constructed to the rear of No 69A, both of which are accessed off [name]. There are some examples of buildings set further back from [address] into the countryside, including a barn to the south-west of [address], which was recently granted permission in principle to be replaced with a dwelling2. These buildings result in a more varied relationship with the open fields beyond.

The evidence indicates one to two dwellings would be accommodated on the site with access via [name]. As the appeal site relates to part of a larger, undeveloped open field, the development would undoubtably result in spatial encroachment into the countryside by introducing development into land where there presently is none. I note that screening provided by existing landscape features restricts some long-to-medium range views from nearby Public Rights of Way (PROW) and that planting along the site boundaries could be secured at the TDC stage. However, glimpsed views from some public vantage points would still be achievable, particularly where hedgerow cover is sparse and given the rising land level from the PROW towards the appeal site. The effect of which would be of a development extending along a rural track that has eroded part of a larger agricultural field and its undeveloped characteristics. Consequently, the scheme would result in spatial and visual encroachment into the countryside and harm to the character and appearance of the area.

However, the development would not extend further south-west into the countryside than other buildings that exist in the immediate vicinity off [address], which form part of the established pattern of development. A scheme could also be designed which reflects the relationship of the existing properties on [name]. Accordingly, even though the scheme would extend residential development along this rural lane, it would not appear wholly out of character with nearby development or significantly alter the landscape, particularly as most of the open field would remain devoid of built form. Nor would the scheme substantially undermine the settlement pattern of Stonely, or appear as a significant visual intrusion into the countryside, given the scale of the development 2 Council Ref. 25/01355/PIP and proximity to other buildings that occupy a similar set-back position. Consequently, any harm arising from the encroachment of this development into the countryside would be localised and limited in this particular case.

Nevertheless, for the above reasons, I conclude that the site would not be suitable for residential development having regard to its location, land use and the amount of development proposed given the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. This conflicts with Policies LP10, LP11 and LP12 of the LP, Paragraph 135 of the Framework and Parts C1 and I1of the NDG. Together and amongst other things these require developments to respond positively to their context, successfully integrate with their surroundings and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

Representations made by interested parties have been duly considered; however, my decision is limited to consideration of land use, amount and location. As such, the concerns raised regarding the highway, living conditions, ecology, local infrastructure and refuse collection, are matters that would be considered as part of a subsequent TDC. I also note the Council has raised no objections to these matters in principle and based on the information before me, I see no reason to come to a different conclusion. Moreover, concerns over setting a precedent for further development have not factored into my consideration of this appeal, which I have assessed on its planning merits.

I have found that the appeal scheme would not be a suitable countryside location for the proposed development and would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the abovementioned policies of the HLP. This is sufficient to bring the development into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Development that conflicts with the development plan should normally be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

One such consideration is the Framework and there is no dispute between the parties that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The evidence provided by the Council indicates that the current supply is 3.88 years, whereas the appellant estimates it to be 3.68 years. Whatever figure is used, this is a substantial shortfall. Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is therefore engaged. Which in this case means granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land and securing well-designed places.

I have concluded that the principle of residential development on this site would spatially and visually encroach into the undeveloped countryside. This is contrary to the framework which expects developments to be sympathetic to local character including the surrounding landscape setting. However, due to the established pattern of development in the vicinity, the harm that would arise would be localised and limited in this particular case. Consequently, this conflict attracts limited weight.

While the spatial strategy in the development plan is consistent with the Framework in seeking to direct new rural housing to settlements, as things stand, a rigorous application of the spatial strategy would frustrate attempts to remedy the housing supply deficit. I note the Framework expects development to prioritise pedestrian and cycle movements and seeks to promote public transport; however, it does not preclude housing in rural areas, particularly where it would support the vitality of rural communities. It also makes the point that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas.

In this case, given the appeal site’s spatial proximity to nearby houses, the site would not be isolated from Stonely. Even though walking and cycling may not be the most attractive option for future occupiers, they do still form viable options to access a range of services and facilities in Kimbolton. Public transport options also exist within walking distance from the appeal site that would provide a genuine alternative to reliance on private vehicles. Moreover, even if private vehicles were used to access services in Kimbolton, journeys would be relatively short and thus the impact on the environment would be low. Overall, given the proximity and accessibility to a nearby key service centre, development on this site would contribute to the vitality of the rural community and support local services, consistent with the objectives of Paragraph 83 of the Framework. Accordingly, although the appeal site is located in the countryside, it is not in an unsustainable location. I therefore afford limited weight to the conflict with the development plan in respect of the site’s countryside location.

Balanced against this, the scheme would deliver two additional dwellings which would make only a modest contribution to total housing supply. However, the scheme would bring forward housing on a small site and make effective use of underutilised land as supported by the Framework. Any additional provision is valuable in the context of the Council’s housing supply shortfall and therefore attracts substantial weight. Other associated social, environmental and economic benefits would also arise including support to an existing rural community, employment generated through construction, and the incorporation of ecological enhancements. Collectively these additional benefits attract moderate weight in favour of the development.

Drawing these matters together, the adverse effects of the development would not be so harmful as to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal, when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied and paragraph 11(d) indicates that permission should be granted. There are no other material considerations to override this finding.

I note the Council’s list of suggested conditions. However, the PPG indicates that it is not possible to impose conditions for a permission in principle. The default duration of permission in principle is 3 years with the technical details consent to be determined during this period. If it is not, then the permission in principle would lapse.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.