Appeal 6003091

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by Bedfordshire Borough Council against [name]. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Bedfordshire Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

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 assessed1. This appeal relates to the first stage.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development. Other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. An applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum number of net dwellings. In this case, permission in principle is sought for up to a maximum of two dwellings.

The proposal follows a previous planning application for permission in principle for the erection of up to four dwellings that was refused and dismissed at appeal in November 2024 (the previous appeal)2. 1 Paragraph: 001 [name]: 58-001-2018061 2 Appeal Ref: APP/K0235/W/24/3340141

The main issues are whether the appeal site is suitable in principle for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development, with respect to the spatial strategy and access to services and facilities.

Policy 3S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (the Local Plan) sets out the spatial strategy to deliver sustainable development and growth. Policy 4S of the Local Plan relates to the amount and distribution of housing in accordance with the settlement hierarchy.

The appeal site is an open parcel of land located next to a recently built housing development. It is bordered by open fields, with further housing beyond. [name] has a defined Settlement Policy Area (SPA) and Policy 5S of the Local Plan allows development within the SPA boundary, the appeal site lies outside that boundary. Therefore, despite its close proximity to the SPA boundary, the site is considered to be countryside for policy purposes and would not benefit from the support of Policy 5S.

Existing housing outside of the SPA boundary does not in itself justify treating the appeal site as if it were within the settlement boundary. The settlement boundary is considered as it is shown on the adopted policies map, not as it could be altered in the future.

Policy 7S of the Local Plan concerns development in the countryside. It includes a limited number of development types which will be permitted outside SPAs, none of which applies in this case. Exceptionally development proposals will also be supported on sites that are well-related to a defined SPA, [name] or the built form of other settlements where it can be demonstrated that the proposal meets the criteria set out in parts vi – ix. of the policy. Even if I were to accept that the appeal site is well-related to the SPA boundary, it has not been demonstrated how the proposal would satisfy the relevant criteria of Policy 7S, specifically parts vi and vii, as the remainder of the criteria would apply to the technical details consent stage. Consequently, I can only conclude that the proposal would conflict with Policy 7S.

Turning to accessibility to services and facilities, although the appeal site lies very close to the SPA boundary, this in itself does not establish that the location is sustainable, and there is nothing substantive before me to demonstrate that SPA designations are based on sustainability. Based on the evidence, there is a village shop nearby as well as a church hall, pub and playing field. These limited services would meet some day-to-day needs of future occupants and can be accessed on foot or by bicycle. However, I agree with the Inspector in the previous appeal that future occupants would have to leave the village to access other higher order services and facilities for education, employment, healthcare and entertainment.

I am mindful that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, as advocated at paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). [name] is served by a bus route providing access to Bedford, with services now running five times a day, an increase from the three daily services considered in the previous appeal. Although the bus service would offer an alternative to private car travel, the timetable includes gaps of up to four hours between services and provides no evening provision. It is acknowledged that there is a service before school time. However, the limited frequency and lack of flexibility mean that future occupants would not be able to rely on the bus to provide regular access to the services and facilities they would require. Consequently, it is most likely that future occupants would be reliant on a private car for the majority of their journeys.

There is nothing substantive before me to indicate that the proposed land use and amount of development would be unacceptable. However, this would not overcome the issues I have identified in terms of the appeal site’s location.

Drawing all of the above together, I therefore conclude that the appeal site is not suitable in principle for residential development, having regard to its location, with respect to the spatial strategy and access to services and facilities. It would cause significant harm as it would undermine the spatial strategy for housing and would lead to an over reliance on private cars. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Policies 3S, 4S and 7S of the Local Plan, the purposes of which have been set out above. It would also conflict with Policy 53 of the Local Plan, which amongst things, requires that wherever possible development should be located to provide convenient access to local services by foot, cycle and public transport.

It would also conflict with paragraphs 115 and 117 of the Framework, which state that when assessing specific applications for development, it should be ensured that sustainable transport modes are prioritised and applications for development should give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements; and second, so far as possible, to facilitating access to high quality public transport.

[address] Farmhouse (The Farmhouse) is a [name] listed building3 which is adjacent to the appeal site on the other side of the road. Section 66(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special regard is had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The special interest and significance of The Farmhouse is primarily derived through its age of construction and architectural features. Given that the immediate surroundings include more recent development, I am satisfied that, in principle, development here would be capable of preserving the setting of this listed building.

Set against the harm would be the benefits of the proposal. It could deliver a maximum of two new homes, adding to the choice and mix of housing in the area. However, the contribution to the overall housing supply would be relatively small. This therefore restricts the extent of the benefit. There would be some economic and social benefits associated with the proposal, during the construction stage, as well as support for local services by future occupants. However, the quantum of development proposed would restrict the extent of these benefits. Overall, I give moderate weight to these benefits.

Design and landscaping would be matters addressed at the technical details consent stage. As such, any improvement to the character of the site and ecological enhancements are of limited weight. 3 Historic England List Entry Number: 1114813

I have found that the appeal site is not suitable in principle for residential development having regard to its location, with respect to the spatial strategy and access to services and facilities. I have judged the magnitude of harm as significant.

Paragraph 232 of the Framework states that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The Framework states that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led. It also sets out to promote sustainable development in rural areas, where certain circumstances apply. Policies 3S, 4S, 7S and 53 of the Local Plan, which are the most relevant for the determination of this appeal, do not seek to constrain development; they allow certain forms of development in the countryside with convenient access to local services and are consistent with the Framework. Therefore, the conflict between the proposal and these policies should be given significant weight in this appeal.

As there are no policies in the Local Plan which positively favour development of this kind in this location, and as the proposal conflicts with the policies referred to above, there would be conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. With a supply of 3.46 years, this is a considerable shortfall. In these circumstances, footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date. Consequently, in accordance with paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken 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 Framework supports the development of windfall sites, giving great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes. However, as described above, the benefits associated with the proposal would be moderate, even when taking account of the objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes in the Framework and the Council’s housing supply position. The Framework states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes in a sustainable manner. Consequently, the adverse impacts of the proposal through its undermining of the spatial strategy for housing and the over reliance on private car, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.