Appeal 6003266

The appeal is dismissed.

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 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 [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The description of the proposal as set out in the application form contains superfluous text and elements which do not specifically relate to acts of development. In these circumstances, in the interests of accuracy and precision, I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice which adequately describes the proposal.

Whilst detailed elevation plans have been submitted, I have treated these as illustrative and are not determinative in my decision.

The main issues are whether the location, land use and amount of the proposed development is acceptable, having regard to the: • siting of the proposal outside of a defined settlement boundary; and • accessibility to services and facilities for future occupants.

Policy 2 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015) (HDPF) seeks to focus development in and around the key settlement of Horsham, allowing for growth in the rest of the district in accordance with the identified settlement hierarchy. Policy 3 of the HDPF sets out the settlement hierarchy and states that development will be permitted within towns and villages which have defined built-up areas. Policy 4 supports the expansion of settlements outside of build-up area boundaries where a number of criteria apply. Policy 26 states that development outside built-up area boundaries must be essential to its countryside location and meet one of a number of further criteria. These policies define the evidence based spatial strategy and plan-led approach to development within the district.

The appeal site is situated within [site address] , a loose cluster of rural housing which has no settlement boundary as defined by the development plan or visually on the ground. The site is therefore located within the countryside. Whilst the site is set within a row of this rural housing, the site would not adjoin a defined settlement edge, nor is the proposed residential use of the land essential development for its location. The location of development would therefore not meet the criteria of [name] 4 and 26 for development situated outside of built-up area boundaries. The location of development would therefore conflict with these policies, along with Policies 2 and 3 of the HDPF.

Whilst the site is not isolated owing to being situated between existing houses, there are very limited facilities and services within [site address] . Therefore, to meet their daily needs, future occupiers would therefore be required to travel to other settlements.

A number of bus stops have been brought to my attention within the area. The evidence shows that the bus routes go to the settlements of Loxwood, Storrington, Plaistow, Billingshurst, Thakeham and Horsham. However, the frequency of these routes has not been provided within the evidence.

In any case, whilst some of these bus stops would be within walking distance, to access them would require future occupiers to navigate unlit rural roads with no pedestrian footpaths. In the early mornings or evenings, particularly within the winter when the hours of daylight are fewer, accessing the bus stops would be impractical and undesirable. It is therefore highly unlikely that future occupiers could meet their daily needs with these bus services.

[name] note the provisions of paragraph 110 of the Framework, in this case the proposal would introduce a development, where in principle, future occupiers would be heavily reliant upon the private motor car to meet their daily needs.

For this reason, the location of the proposal would conflict with Policy 2 which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that the needs of the community are met through sustainable growth and suitable access to services and local employment.

The appeal site is situated within the [name], which the evidence shows that without mitigation measures the proposal would have an adverse effect on the Arun Valley SAC, SPA and Ramsar sites. As part of the planning application, the Council conducted an Appropriate Assessment where it concluded that the proposal would not result in an adverse impact on the integrity of the Arun Valley sites. [name] am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I do not need to discuss this matter further as it does not affect the outcome of the appeal.

The proposed development is not in accordance with the aforementioned policies of the HDPF, by virtue of the location of development outside of a defined settlement boundary and lack of access to facilities and services.

However, the evidence shows the Council only has a 1.0 year housing land supply. The provisions of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework are therefore engaged. Footnote 8 confirms in these circumstances, the policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed to be out-of-date. Paragraph 232 of the Framework confirms due weight should be given to policies, according to their consistency with the Framework.

In relation to the siting of the proposal outside of a defined settlement boundary the proposal would conflict with Policies 2, 3, 4 and 26 which sets out the Council’s strategy for accommodating housing within the District. However, the adopted strategy is not meeting the local housing needs of the area. The development plan is failing to meet paragraph 61 of the Framework which sets out the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and ensuring a sufficient amount of land can come forward. As such, conflict with these policies, in relation to the siting outside of a settlement boundary, only carries very limited weight against the proposal.

However, the appeal proposal would create a car-dependent dwelling owing to the principle of its location. There would be no opportunity to maximise sustainable transport solutions, even accounting for the flexibility for rural areas recognised by paragraph 110 of the Framework. Paragraph 115 of the Framework sets out it should be ensured that sustainable transport modes are prioritised accounting for the vision for the site, type of development and location. Paragraph 117 seeks to ensure development facilitates access to high quality public transport. Therefore, Policy 2 of the HDPF is consistent with the Framework. On this basis, the conflict with Policy 2 in this regard carries significant weight against the proposal.

The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole, and the abovementioned paragraphs of the Framework.

The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing, including through small and medium schemes. The proposal would contribute one self-build dwelling which would count towards both the Council’s supplies of housing land and self-build plots on a site which falls within the definition of previously developed land. It would also lead to a small and time limited economic benefit during the construction phase, as well as some limited economic benefits resulting from the spend of future occupiers within the wider district. However, given the small scale of the proposal, these benefits would at most attract limited positive weight in favour of the development.

Overall, the adverse effects of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development would not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.