Appeal 6003223

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle, which is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first (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 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development proposed. 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 and have considered the submitted block plan as indicative.

The main issues are 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 be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • whether the site would be a suitable location for the proposed development, having regard to local and national policy, and accessibility to services and facilities; and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm as to amount to very special circumstances.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Framework states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Policy SD5 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] 2011-2031 (JCS) seeks to ensure that the Green Belt continues to serve its key functions and will be protected from harmful development. Policy GRB4 of the [site address] Plan 2011-2031 (TBP) lists the forms of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, whilst TBP Policy RES4(f) provides an exception for new housing that complies with the Green Belt exceptions explicitly stated in the Framework. These policies pre-date the latest version of the Framework and I have had regard to them insofar as they are consistent with the Framework.

It is contended by the appellants that the proposed development would not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt in terms of paragraph 154 exceptions e) and g) of the Framework. The former refers to the limited infilling in villages, and the latter relates to the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Whether the site would be located in a village is not determined by the existence of a settlement limit. Moreover, the Framework does not define ‘limited’ and ‘infilling’ and these are a matter of fact and planning judgement.

The locality consists of a very loose grouping of buildings set amongst open fields. Dwellings are sporadically located along [site address] Lane, many of which have outbuildings, including stables. A short distance to the West of the appeal site, I saw what appeared to be a farmyard consisting of a cluster of agricultural buildings on both sides of [site address] Lane associated with an adjoining farmhouse. Beyond that is the large [address] Hotel and Spa complex set in spacious grounds.

The appeal site contains low level structures and outdoor storage that sits adjacent to a dwelling, stable block and a further structure with a more modern agricultural appearance. These, along with a village hall and [address] on the opposite side of [site address] Lane, are surrounded by fields, with far reaching views and characterised as be sited within the countryside.

Due to the distances between the buildings, the sense of openness to the fields between them, and the noticeable lack of services and facilities in the locality, I would not describe the appeal site as being located within a village or filling a gap in a ribbon of development. Accordingly, the proposed development would not represent limited infilling in a village and fails to meet exception 154 e) of the Framework.

The existing structures that occupy part of the appeal site, and their storage and equestrian uses, are lawful. Therefore, I am satisfied that they, and the surrounding hardstanding, constitute previously developed land (PDL) as per the definition in Annex 2 of the Framework.

Due to the built form existing on part of the appeal site, albeit modest in size and height, there is potential for the proposed dwelling to be constructed in a manner that would not have a greater impact on openness than these structures currently do. It would be a matter for the technical details stage when full details are available.

However, the PDL is positioned to only part of the appeal site with a significant portion consisting of undeveloped land to the front, adjacent to [site address] Lane, as well as to the east. The incorporation of this land within the residential curtilage of the proposed dwelling would result in a significantly more intensive use of the land compared to the current situation, such as regular comings and goings, including trips for necessary services and facilities, as well as visitors and deliveries, and the addition of domestic paraphernalia. This would have a negative impact on both the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt.

Taking all these factors together and the very prominent positioning of these front and side sections of the appeal site, which do not constitute PDL, in relation to [site address] Lane, I have found that the proposed development would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Consequently, it would not comply with exception 154 g) of the Framework.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework is subject to four criteria and there is no dispute between the parties that the proposed development would comply with criteria a and b, and criterion d is not relevant as it is not for a major development. On the basis of the evidence before me and from my observations, I find no reason to reach a different conclusion.

The disagreement centres on criterion c, which relates to the development being in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. Whilst a village hall, hotel with spa, church and cricket club are nearby, future occupants of the of the new dwelling would need to travel further distances to meet day-to-day needs such as shops and schools.

Twigworth and Innsworth are located to the west and south of the appeal site respectively and I saw that these are undergoing a significant amount of new house building. These built-up areas have a wide range of services and facilities, including bus stops. The distances to these are noticeable and the route would, in the most part, be via long roads with no footpath or streetlights. Whilst they may be suitable for confident walkers and cyclists, the road conditions would not be attractive to all including those with mobility issues, particularly during adverse weather and during the hours of darkness.

Limited information is before me relating to the referenced cycleway between the large urban areas of Gloucester and Cheltenham, including access to it from the appeal site. Notwithstanding that, it would be necessary to use [site address] Lane, which includes the road conditions described above. Therefore, the presence of this cycleway has not altered my findings. Public rights of way in the vicinity of the appeal site are generally across fields and are neither lit nor surfaced.

As a result of a lack of genuine sustainable travel choices, the occupants of the new dwelling would be heavily reliant on private motor vehicles, to access services and facilities on a regular basis including as part of multi-mode travel. Although ultra-low and zero emission vehicles fall under the Framework’s definition of sustainable transport modes, it is a personal choice to have one as a private vehicle.

I note concern surrounding sustainability having become largely a test of geography and the application of an urban mindset to define sustainable locations. Paragraph 110 of the Framework acknowledges opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. However, this does not negate the requirement to offer a genuine choice of transport modes and ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved by all users, as required by paragraph 115. Consequently, the proposal would not be in a sustainable location and would not accord with criterion c and therefore would not fall under the exception given in paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Whilst advances in digital technology and commerce, such as home working and home deliveries, have the potential to reduce the level of private vehicle trips, there is little evidence before me that it would have a meaningful impact on the appeal scheme and as such has not swayed me away from my findings.

My attention has been drawn to appeal decisions1 in support of the proposed development. I have found these to be materially different to the appeal scheme before me. In the first case, there were existing buildings to either side of the site within a ribbon development that stretched out from a settlement containing essential services and facilities. The site of the second case formed part of the transition between the main built-up area of Cheltenham and the countryside, being neither detached from the town nor separated by any meaningful gap. As such, a comparison is of limited relevance in this instance, and I have considered the appeal before me on its individual merits.

In conclusion, the proposed development would not accord with any of the exceptions contained at paragraph 154 and 155 of the Framework and is therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt in terms of the Framework and JCS Policy SD5, and [name] RES4 and GRB4.

The relevant reason for refusal refers to TBP Policy RES3. However, as this relates to new housing outside settlement boundaries and not specifically the Green Belt, this policy is not directly relevant to this main issue.

The appeal site is located outside of a settlement boundary and is classed as being in the open countryside. JCS Policy SP2 sets out the distribution of new development and defers to JCS Policy SD10 for sites in rural areas, which directs new housing to allocated sites and on sites within identified settlements. Sub-section 4 provides exceptions to the general constraint against new housing outside of settlements. Part ii. allows for infilling within the existing built-up areas of 1 Appeal Refs: APP/G1630/W/22/3308688 & 6000543 villages and the supporting text clarifies that infill means the development of an under-developed plot well related to existing built development. Part iv. allows for other exceptions / circumstances defined in the district or neighbourhood. Policy SD10’s supporting text identifies that outside cities, towns, rural service centres and service villages, there are generally insufficient facilities to support development and so they are not considered sustainable locations for residential development. As such new residential development is not considered appropriate unless specific exceptions are made within the JCS, district or neighbourhood plan policies.

TBP Policy RES3 generally resists new housing developments outside settlement boundaries, whilst Policy RES4 supports very small-scale residential development within and adjacent to the built-up area of rural settlements, which includes limited infilling in a village in the Green Belt. Supporting text to Policy RES4 highlights that for the purpose of that policy and JCS Policy SD10, the built-up area of the settlement will be considered to be its continuous built form as it existed at the start of the plan period. Furthermore, it excludes, inter alia, individual buildings or groups of dispersed buildings which are clearly detached from the continuous built-up area of the settlement; undeveloped land within the curtilage of buildings on the edge of the settlement where land relates more to the surrounding countryside than to the built-up area of the settlement; and agricultural buildings and associated land on the edge of the settlement.

No specific requirement for an infill plot to be tightly abutted by other development on multiple sides is given in the supporting text to JCS Policy SD10. However, applying fact and planning judgement, due to the very sporadic and dispersed nature of the structures located along [site address] Lane, surrounded by open fields, including the expanse of undeveloped land surrounding the small cluster of structures the appeal site contributes towards, it does not constitute an existing built-up area of a village. Consequently, the proposal does not represent infill development. Moreover, as detailed above, I have found that the proposal would not comprise limited infilling of a village within the Green Belt.

I have already concluded that the occupants of the proposed dwelling would be heavily reliant on private motor vehicles to access services and facilities on a regular basis.

Claims surrounding the Council’s desire to control its travel to school budget are unsubstantiated and I have given it very limited weight. Details of other appeal decisions where it is claimed a more balanced and holistic approach have been taken are not before me and thereby, I am unable to establish whether the circumstances are comparable to the proposed development.

For these reasons, the appeal would not be a suitable location for the proposed development, having regard to local and national policy, and accessibility to services and facilities, contrary to [name] SP2 and SD10, and [name] RES3 and RES4. It would also conflict with JCS Policy INF1, which requires safe and accessible connections to the transport network to enable travel choices for residents and commuters.

The proposal would deliver a single energy efficient dwelling to the housing supply with opportunities for enhanced biodiversity. It is also indicated that the dwelling would be a self/custom build home and an unchallenged claim by the appellants states that there is no published evidence of the Council meeting its duty under the [name] and Custom Housing Act 2015. There would also be associated economic benefits during the construction and once the dwelling has been occupied. Nevertheless, due to the small scale of the proposal and thereby the small scale of the associated benefits, I afford this moderate weight.

Whilst the appeal site is located in an area with the lowest risk of flooding; the plot size could accommodate off-street parking and cycle storage; there would be no adverse impact on living conditions; and access would be determined at the next stage, a lack of harm in these respects are neutral considerations that weigh neither for nor against the appeal scheme.

The appeal site falls within the Zone of Influence for the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC), which is a European Site as defined in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). The appellant has provided a signed unilateral undertaking (UU), which would secure a financial contribution towards measures to mitigate the adverse impacts resulting from increased recreational pressures. Whilst details have not been provided by the Council on this matter, based on my knowledge of the SAC, this approach accords with the mitigation developed for the SAC and the Council has confirmed that the UU addresses the fourth reason for refusal. Notwithstanding the UU, as I have found that the appeal scheme would be unacceptable for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there would be any likely significant effects on the integrity of the SAC or undertake an Appropriate Assessment.

I have concluded that the proposed development would be inappropriate development and would therefore, by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt. I have also found that there would be harm to the openness of the Green Belt. These are matters to which I give substantial weight as required by paragraph 153 of the Framework.

The appeal site would not be a suitable location for the proposed development, having regard to local and national policy, and accessibility to services and facilities. This also weighs heavily against the appeal scheme.

The other considerations provide moderate benefits and do not have sufficient cumulative weight to clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist and it would be contrary to the Framework and JCS Policy SD5 and [name] RES4 and GRB4.

Both parties agree that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. The appellant indicates the figure to be 2.58 years, whilst the Council refers to 3.14 years. In either case paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is applicable. However, paragraph 11 d) provides an exception where there are circumstances where the application of policies in the Framework to protect areas and assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal. Footnote 7 establishes that this includes the Green Belt. [name] have found that there would be harm to the Green Belt, the appeal proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole 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 is dismissed.