Appeal 6003258

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The site address on the application form is incomplete. For the purposes of the banner heading, I have taken the address from the Council’s decision notice, which the appellant has also used on the appeal form.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that permission in principle is 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 stage (PiP) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second stage (technical details consent (TDC) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. Planning permission does not exist unless both the permission in principle and the technical details consent are approved. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for the PiP stage is limited to location, land use and the amount of development. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application, if PiP is granted.

The amount of residential development must be expressed as a range, indicating the minimum and maximum number of dwellings. In this case, permission in principle is sought for a minimum and maximum of 3 dwellings. Given the appeal seeks PiP, I have considered the drawings provided on the basis that they are indicative only.

The third reason for refusal on the Council’s decision notice relates to highway safety. I have considered this matter within my reasoning having regard to the remit of PiP.

The appeal site is located close to a [name] listed building known as [address]. It is two storey property that is set back from [address], and its significance derives from its historic and architectural interest. I am mindful of my statutory duty under Section 66(1) of the Act to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.

Given the intervening land and cottage, I am satisfied that the erection of three dwellings could be capable of preserving or enhancing the significance of the listed building. The Council’s Conservation Consultant also found that the TDC stage would provide an opportunity to ensure there would be no harm to the significance of the listed building and the Council has not raised any concerns in this particular regard. Therefore, it has not been determinative in terms of the considerations under the main issue.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is suitable for residential development in respect of its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development having regard to:  whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and any relevant development plan policies;  the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and  if the proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

Policy 2 of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 (2017) (LP) sets out that the location and scale of new development should accord with the Council’s settlement hierarchy. It confirms that the Redditch urban area, as the [name] shall be the focus for development. After this it identifies [name] as a [name], excluded from the Green Belt, which offers an appropriate range of services and facilities. In that regard, it confirms that development within the settlement boundary will be the focus for identified development needs and supporting local services and infrastructure. There is no dispute that the appeal site is located outside the settlement boundary for [name] and is in the Green Belt for the purposes of decision making.

LP Policy 8 sets out that applications for development in the Green Belt will be determined in line with national planning guidance and other relevant policies within the development plan. In that regard, the Framework establishes that new buildings in the Green Belt are inappropriate other than for specified exceptions that are set out in paragraphs 154 and 155.

The appellant asserts that the site would fall under part (g) of the exception criteria listed under paragraph 154 of the Framework. This refers to the ‘limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt’.

The Framework does not define the term ‘limited infilling’, and whether a proposal constitutes such is therefore a matter of planning judgement. In general terms, however, limited infilling is commonly understood to involve the development of a small gap within an otherwise built-up frontage. Although there is some sporadic development along [address] and the appeal site lies adjacent to a dwelling known as [address], it is otherwise surrounded by fields and agricultural land. In this context, the appeal site cannot reasonably be described as limited infilling for the purposes of paragraph 154(g).

There is also inconsistency in the appellant’s case with regards the status of the land. The ‘Planning Statement’ submitted at application stage refers to the appeal site as a ‘greenfield plot’, whereas the appeal statement asserts that it is previously developed land (PDL), was formerly formed part of the residential curtilage of [address] and has been used for the storage of vehicles and equipment.

However, while the documentation provided indicates that the land was once in common ownership with [address], ownership alone does not establish a lawful planning use. There is no persuasive evidence to demonstrate that the land was used as part of the domestic garden of that dwelling. Similarly, neighbour consultation responses relating to the presence of vehicles and machinery on the site are not supported by corroborative evidence as to the nature, scale or continuity of the alleged use. There is therefore no conclusive evidence before me to suggest that there is an established use on the site.

Notwithstanding the above, the Framework defines PDL as land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it. It excludes land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape. On my site visit, I observed a small number of dilapidated timber structures largely concealed by vegetation, together with a storage container. However, the vast majority of the appeal site comprises unmanaged grass, shrubs and natural undergrowth, giving it a predominantly undeveloped, rural appearance. Given the degree to which the remains of any structures have blended into the landscape, I find that the site does not align with the definition of PDL in the Framework.

Even if I were to take an alternative view, paragraph 154(g) requires that development does not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt; and the courts have held that it can be perceived both spatially and visually.

The site is largely enclosed by vegetation, and I acknowledge that the plot of land between the site and [address] would be free of development. Even so, without evidence to demonstrate otherwise, it is likely that the upper parts of the dwellings would exceed the height of any retained vegetation. The creation of gardens, the subdivision of plots with associated boundary treatments and other domestic paraphernalia within individual plots would also likely contribute to a more visually developed site. The presence of this additional built form would be marked when compared with the site’s current prevailing open appearance. It would likely be perceptible from [address] in the event that any built form exceeded the height of vegetation, through any gaps in the vegetation including for example any access point, in views from the adjacent public right of way and from [address].

Furthermore, and irrespective of the final design and layout, the cumulative volume and footprint of the amount of dwellings proposed would be likely to represent a significant intensification of built development on the site, and would markedly reduce the openness from a spatial perspective. Taken together these visual and spatial factors indicate that there would be substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt and so the proposed development would not meet the exception set out in paragraph 154 g).

The appellant also asserts that the proposal would meet the exception criteria at paragraph 155 of the Framework. This sets out that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where all of a specific list of criteria are met. Criteria (c) is particularly pertinent to the scope of considerations under PiP and requires that the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework.

The appeal site sits well outside of the defined settlement boundary of the nearest settlement, [name]. The intervening route along [address] comprises an unlit, national speed limit, country road with no footway for most of its length. It is thereby unlikely to provide a suitable walking or cycling route particularly during hours of darkness or inclement weather. While there is a bus service that passes along [address], the nearest bus stop is within [name] and I understand only served by a limited service. Bus stops with a more regular service are situated further away within [name].

There is a network of public rights of way in the area. However, the routes to [name] from the appeal site are indirect. The uneven terrain would also make these routes impractical, unsafe or even impassable for those with visual or mobility impairments, carers or those travelling with young children, with the absence of lighting seriously impeding journeys after dusk. Hence these footpaths are unlikely to provide a suitable alternative to [address].

The Council’s third reason for refusal suggests the proposed development would pose a risk to highway safety. The appellant makes reference to a previous planning permission for access off [address], where it is alleged no objection was made on highways grounds. In any case, whilst I accept that the absence of pavements and streetlighting could mean that pedestrians would have to walk in the carriageway, whether or not this would be to the detriment of highway safety, and whether provisions could be made to overcome any safety concerns such as a reduction to the speed limit would be matters for the TDC stage. Even so, this does not overcome my other concerns in respect of the site’s location, land use and amount in terms of accessibility.

Overall, the nature of the local highway network, the distances involved and the lack of bus stops in the vicinity of the site would not be conducive to encourage walking or the use of public transport to access day-to-day local services and facilities in [name] or further afield. As a result, future residents would not have a genuine choice of sustainable modes of transport contrary to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework and consequently would be heavily reliant on private vehicles. This would also be contrary to the requirements of Policies 19 and 20 of the LP which seek amongst other things to improve accessibility and mobility, to reduce the need to travel by car, increase public transport use, maximise cycling and walking, and for all proposals to be located accessible to local services.

Criterion (c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework is therefore not met. As all of the criteria within paragraph 155 of the Framework must be satisfied for the exception to apply, even if I had found the proposal would meet the remaining criteria, the failure to meet this requirement is determinative.

I conclude that the appeal site is not a suitable location for residential development in respect of its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development. In that regard it would conflict with the development strategy for the area as it would be located outside the settlement boundary for [name] contrary to LP Policy 2 and would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to LP Policy 8 and the Framework.

The proposal would result in inappropriate development in the Green Belt including substantial harm to its openness. The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and that substantial weight should be given to any harm. Inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances, which will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The Council accepts that it cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. The proposed development would make a small albeit positive contribution to housing in the area. It would also generate limited socio-economic benefits through employment during construction and increased support for local services and facilities. Whether the size of the dwellings would reflect housing need, the design credentials of the dwellings, and whether the proposed development could also incorporate sustainable drainage, electric vehicle charging infrastructure and energy-efficient measures with a low carbon footprint, additional landscaping and biodiversity enhancements are uncertain and would be matters for the TDC.

Overall, the benefits of providing 3 dwellings would be modest and their location contrary to the Council’s strategy of siting development in accessible locations leads me to afford them no more than moderate weight in favour of the appeal even in the absence of a five-year housing supply. Therefore, the other considerations do not, individually or cumulatively, outweigh the substantial weight I must give to the Green Belt harm. Therefore, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

Having regard to the Council’s housing land supply position, Paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework directs that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies that are most important for determining an application are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless certain circumstances apply. One such circumstance is where the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance, such as the Green Belt, provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

I have found that the proposed development’s location, amount and land use would be harmful to the Green Belt and that the other considerations do not amount to the very special circumstances required to justify this harm. Therefore, this is a circumstance which provides a strong reason for refusing the development.

Moreover, I have also found that the development would not represent a sustainable location for new housing as it would be contrary to the accessibility requirements of the Framework also conflicting with the Council’s development strategy. In the circumstances, and even in the absence of a five-year housing land supply, the proposal would not be supported under paragraph 11(d) of the Framework.

For the reasons given, I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.