Appeal 6002762

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the erection of 2no. self-build dwellings at Land on the [name] of [address], Caldecote, Cambridge [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application ref 25/02358/PIP.

An application for costs is made by [name] against South Cambridgeshire District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The proposal seeks permission in principle, an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages. The first stage (or permission in principle (PiP) stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle for housing development, and the second stage (technical details consent (TDC)) is when the detailed proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for PiP is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application, if PiP is granted. As such, I have regarded the submitted plans as indicative only. Against that context, the main issue in this appeal is whether the site is suitable for residential development, including the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy S/10 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan; [name] (SCLPSS) 2018, identifies [site address] as a Group Village, where residential development within the development framework will be permitted up to an indicative maximum scheme size of 8 dwellings. Policy S/7 distinguishes the criteria that is applicable for development within and outside of development frameworks. Outside of development frameworks, Policy S/7 will only support allocations within [name] and development for agriculture, horticulture, forestry, outdoor recreation and other uses which need to be located in the countryside or, where supported by other policies in the development plan.

Whilst the indicative layout plan suggests that Plot 1 would be sited alongside No [address] within the development framework, Plot 2 would be located to the rear of the appeal site beyond the village boundary on land identified as countryside. The evidence before me does not indicate that the proposal would be for a type of development supported by Policy S/7. For these reasons, the proposal taken as a whole, would be in conflict with Policy S/7. This is irrespective of the applicability of Policy H/16 and regardless of whether the appeal site could be considered to be previously developed land (PDL), a matter to which I now turn.

The appeal site comprises a largely undeveloped ‘L’ shaped plot extending back from [address] and wrapping around the rear garden of No 20. The ground is uneven and uncultivated with self-seeded shrubs, while the rear portion contains an extensive number of trees forming part of a larger tree plantation extending to the south-east. A dilapidated corrugated building appears to have been in use as stabling, given the provision of an internal wooden hay feeder.

The appellant suggests that the appeal site once formed part of the curtilage of Touchwood which occupied the plot until its demolition. He contends that no alternative development has occurred since the land was last used as garden. Curtilage and land in use for residential purposes are not necessarily the same thing. Just because land may be owned as part of a property does not mean it is in the same use. Curtilage is land closely associated with a dwelling, usually that immediately around it.

The appeal site is very deep and there is insufficient evidence before me to demonstrate that the land to the rear of the plot was used as garden or for residential purposes. The only evidence I do have is the appellant’s historical map which marks the rear portion of the appeal site in a distinct colour and annotation which differs from the land directly to the rear of the former dwelling1. It is not clear the extent to which the land can be considered to have a nil planning use or whether it has reverted to agricultural land. Even if no change of use or alternative development has occurred since, it does not automatically follow that it remains in residential use.

Neighbours suggest that the appeal site has not been used as a residential garden for at least 30 years and over the years it has become covered with self-set trees and dense scrub. I cannot be certain that visits by the appellant’s family to exercise their dog has been sufficient to prevent the residential use from being abandoned.

The Caldecote Village Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document ([name]) 2020, suggests that these plots began to develop as smallholdings. It may be that the land further away from the dwelling was in agricultural or equestrian use. It is not clear whether the neighbour’s recollection that the appeal site was a garden, related to some or all of the appeal site. The appellant’s preliminary bat roost assessment also refers to the rear of the site as containing a block of scrub 1 As shown in figure 11 of the appellant’s appeal statement. and hedgerow, which would not appear typical of a garden. In any case, the appellant accepts that the appeal site has, ‘not been used as garden land for decades.’

In light of the lack of evidence and my description of the appeal site as seen during my visit, I cannot conclude that the eastern portion of the appeal site should be regarded as residential land for the purposes of Policy H/16, whether or not it is located in the development framework. It is not for me as part of this s78 appeal to determine the existing lawful use of the appeal site and a certificate of lawfulness has not been provided. I have no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the Council would support such an application were one to be made, particularly given the number of interested party representations that state the land has not been used as garden for 30+ years. Even if I could consider the appeal site to be in residential use, Policy H/16 of the SCLPSS requires development to reflect local character. I am not satisfied on the evidence presented that the proposal would comply with Policy H/16. Even if it did, this does not remove the conflict with Policy S/7 which makes no reference to there being an exception if Policy H/16 is met.

Policy S/10 identifies group villages as being generally less sustainable locations for new development than rural centres and minor rural centres. This is due to them having fewer services and facilities, allowing only some of the basic day-to-day requirements of their residents to be met, without the need to travel outside the village. [site address] contains a restrained number of existing facilities including a primary school and village hall. The proposed dwelling at Plot 2 would have accessibility credentials comparable to existing homes and Plot 1 within the development framework. The proposal would therefore support the settlement’s limited service role.

However, to access shops, supermarkets and employment areas, future occupants would need to travel to larger centres. It is not clear whether bus services are available or their frequency. While the site has some positive accessibility characteristics, future occupiers would still be car dependant for many everyday needs. Whilst noting that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, it is clear that the development would be contrary to the Council’s housing strategy of locating new housing development in the larger most accessible locations.

Notwithstanding the modern housing estate to the west, [address] has a semi-rural character arising from the single-track road lined with detached dwellings of differing styles set back from the street frontage behind hedgerows, in deep plots that back onto the open countryside beyond. Residential development, including large outbuildings and dwellings, has however, begun to occur behind the linear frontage development. The Council advises that some of these ‘in-depth’ developments such as those at No 4 and [address] were located within the development Framework. Nonetheless, the Framework boundary is not clearly defined on the ground. The recent dwellings in particular, are visible from within the street scene of [address] and appear as obvious backland development. This has resulted in a change to the previously linear character of [address].

The Design Guide supports infill development and provides advice on how to subdivide large rectilinear plots. However, this applies within the development framework of which I have established part of the appeal site is not. Although the appellant suggests that the proposal represents an infill opportunity, through the provision of Plot 2, it would introduce built development into land that currently forms part of the wider countryside. No matter how the dwellings would be sited or designed at the TDC stage, it could not be considered as infill given that there is no built development to the east. Infill is generally understood to be the development of a small gap within an otherwise built-up frontage. Whilst this would be the case with Plot 1, it would not apply to Plot 2.

The new dwelling at Plot 2, its access, associated hard surfaces and parked cars, together with the suggested outbuilding to the front, lawns and other domestic features, would adversely affect the existing appearance of the undeveloped site. It is not currently in intensive residential garden use and relates more to the open countryside to the east, than the residential development to the west.

However, Plot 2 would only be apparent in public views from [address] where it would be set back and partially screened by the proposed dwelling at Plot 1, as well as other existing dwellings along the road frontage. Achieving an appropriate scale, form and design at the TDC stage could also seek to minimise its impact further. The proposal would weaken the distinction between the built-up area of the framework and the open countryside but, it would reflect the emerging pattern of development in the area. The adverse impact would be limited and localised.

For these reasons, the site would not be suitable for residential development, including the effect on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would conflict with [name]/7, HQ/1 and NH/2 which restrict new housing outside development frameworks, require development to preserve or enhance the character of the local urban and rural area and to respect local distinctiveness.

The description of development refers to ‘self-build dwellings’ which have a specific legal definition under the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (the Act)2. A legal agreement would be necessary at the TDC stage if PiP is granted, to ensure the dwellings are secured and developed for self-build purposes. A planning condition is unlikely to meet the 6 tests of conditions given the complexities involved with the development and occupation of self-build dwellings. I am satisfied that the description of development would restrict any subsequent TDC to custom and self-build housing and that a planning obligation could be attached to that consent.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is clear that pre-application advice cannot pre-empt the democratic decision-making process, or a particular outcome in respect of a formal planning application. The Council’s pre-application advice, whilst suggesting that Plot 2 may not be out of character with surrounding dwellings, does express clear reservations regarding the use of the rear portion of the appeal site outside of the development framework. The advice was clear that there was ambiguity over the last use of the appeal site and encouraged the submission of a lawful development certificate, advice which was not followed. The 2 As amended by as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016. overall response concluded that the development was unacceptable in principle or lacked essential information to make an assessment. I have agreed with the Council’s formal determination that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area which aligns with the findings of the previous Inspector’s, albeit in relation to different schemes3.

Interested parties have raised concerns about the capacity of the lane to support further development, as well as the effect of the proposal on existing vegetation, ecology and drainage. As this is an application for PiP, the matters for determination at this stage are limited. Detailed issues such as access arrangements, internal layout, siting, design, landscaping, boundary treatment and drainage, do not fall to be decided now and would be the subject of a subsequent TDC.

The Highway Authority has raised no objection in principle. There is nothing before me to suggest that the scale of development proposed would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, which could not be properly assessed at the later stage. Similarly, the [name] has advised that there is no in-principle ecological objection, and that matters including habitat protection and biodiversity net gain, can be appropriately addressed where necessary through future submissions. Concerns relating to tree retention, landscaping and drainage are also capable of being satisfactorily dealt with at the TDC stage and do not weigh against the grant of PiP. However, it is important to note that the granting of PiP does not automatically mean that the TDC stage will be permitted if technical/detailed matters cannot be resolved or mitigated.

I have had regard to the site’s planning history and the numerous decisions cited by the appellant4 and the Council5 which support their view that the proposal should be allowed or dismissed. Each application must be determined on its own merits having regard to current policy and material considerations. In this case, the scale and layout of the development proposed and its intended self-build use, distinguish this proposal from earlier decisions at the appeal site and in relation to decisions elsewhere, where there were differing circumstances and/or degrees of harm which justified the particular decision made in that context.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that all planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan. [name]/7 and S10 establish a clear expectation that development, including self-build housing, should principally occur within settlement boundaries. The Self-build Act does not itself provide a basis for the approval of self-build plots as an exception to the provisions of the

However, the relatively contained nature of the appeal site and position of Plot [address] to the development framework boundary and existing dwellings, would 3 [name]/W0530/W/18/3208167. 4 Decisions cited but not limited to those including planning application references S/3228/19/OL, 23/04523/FUL; Meldreth examples 24/04284/OUT and 24/03144/PIP, Fowlmere examples 24/01254/OUT and 24/03285/OUT; Bourn examples 23/02752/OUT and 23/03849/OUT; [name] 24/03344/PIP. Fen Drayton Appeal (no reference provided). 5 Planning application references 25/04513/FUL, 25/03018/PIP, 25/02405/PIP, 25/02085/PIP and appeal decisions APP/W0530/W/24/3343585, APP/W0530/W/23/3320454 and APP/W5030/W/22/3313661. render the harm to the character and appearance of the area limited. Future occupiers would have some services available to them which would reduce but not eliminate the need to travel by car. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), acknowledges that rural housing should be located where it will enhance and maintain the vitality of rural communities, which would be the case here, as future occupiers of the proposal would support the existing local services. The conflict arising with the development plan resulting from the proposal’s location therefore, attracts moderate weight.

To be weighed against this, is the provision of 2 self-build plots. Paragraph 73b) of the Framework supports small sites to come forward for self-build and custom-build housing. The Act also sets out a statutory duty requiring local authorities to keep a register of those seeking to acquire serviced plots in their area, and to give sufficient permissions to meet the identified demand. The Council has confirmed that there is presently a shortfall of 440 in the delivery of self-build plots. This is significant.

There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate how the Council has been attempting to address the shortfall in self-build delivery since the 2024 appeal decision6. [name] considered that the significant weight afforded to the benefit of self-build provision was insufficient to outweigh the conflict with the development plan. Moreover, it is unclear whether the shortfall could be addressed on sites solely within the development frameworks or via developments that would be in accordance with the spatial strategy. Although small in numerical terms, the proposed contribution is nonetheless meaningful in the context of the acute and sustained level of unmet demand. I therefore ascribe this benefit substantial weight.

Other benefits will also arise from the proposal that would attract some limited positive weight including economic benefits from the construction and occupation of the homes.

Interested party representations place weight on the fact that the Council can demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. While that is acknowledged, it does not address the specific statutory duty to meet demand for self-build and custom housebuilding plots. The evidence before me shows a substantial and persistent shortfall in the provision of such plots. In this instance, the moderate weight afforded to the conflict with the development plan would be outweighed by the substantial weight afforded to the provision of 2 self-build dwellings.

The PPG makes it clear that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of PiP, and its terms may only include the site location, the type of development and the amount of development. The default duration of a PiP is 3 years. Applications for TDC must be determined within the duration of the permission granted. Therefore, I have not imposed any conditions.

For the above reasons, I am led to determine the appeal otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. [planning inspector] - INSPECTOR 6