Appeal 6003322

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application was submitted in outline form with all matters reserved for future consideration. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis and I have treated the submitted plans as being illustrative only.

The main issues are: • whether the 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 or not the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the development plan policies; and • 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.

The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework further establishes that the construction of new development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions as set out in paragraph 154 including; at 154(g), limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL) whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The appeal site is a disused riding arena. It comprises of a post and rail fence enclosing an unbound surface material that has become compacted and partially colonised by vegetation over time. The arena is located towards the western edge of an open field and there are no buildings on the site. Further east, and significantly more elevated than the appeal site, lies the [site address] complex comprising of several dwellings including the former farmhouse as well as some converted buildings. The surrounding area is distinctly rural and highly open in character comprising of agricultural fields, bounded by hedgerows and small pockets of woodland, set within a gently rolling landscape.

The Framework definition of PDL includes large areas of fixed surface infrastructure such as large areas of hardstanding which have been lawfully developed. The site is not hardstanding and its loose surface material is not strictly a ‘fixed surface’. I am also mindful that there is no record of any planning permission for the arena, limiting my ability to conclude that the site was lawfully developed. The appellant’s argument that the site is PDL is therefore not a persuasive one. Nonetheless, the second strand to 154(g) is that the proposed development would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. As a low post and rail fenced enclosure, the appeal site allows views across it from the highway to the south. In these views it is barely discernible from the post and rail fenced boundary of the field and has little effect on the openness of the Green Belt at present.

However, the introduction of the built form and domestic use of a new dwelling effectively within an open undeveloped field would significantly erode the openness of this location, in both spatial and visual terms. This loss of openness would be highly evident in views over and through the boundary hedge with the highway to the south and from the access to [address]. Owing to its significantly lower elevation and its level of detachment, located within a separate open field, any such dwelling would not be seen as closely connected to the existing residential development to the east. As a result, the harm to openness would be substantial and for these same reasons it would not constitute limited infilling. As such, even if I were to find that the appeal site constituted PDL, the proposal would cause substantial harm to openness and would thus fail to meet the requirements of 154 (g).

The appellant contends that the site is grey belt. Paragraph 155 of the Framework sets out that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where proposals meet a number of criteria, including where the site utilises grey belt land.

Whilst there is a dispute between the parties as to whether the appeal site constitutes PDL, I would note that grey belt land does not have to be previously developed. Nonetheless, to be regarded as not inappropriate, the development would need to meet all of the criteria at paragraph 155 of the Framework. Whilst there is much discussion in relation to self-build, to which I shall turn to later, the evidence before me is that the Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and has met its required housing delivery over the last three years. Criterion b) of paragraph 155 would not therefore be met which requires a demonstrable need for the type of development proposed.

Moreover, criterion c) requires that the proposed development is in a sustainable location, with particular reference to Framework paragraphs 110 and 115. These seek to prioritise sustainable transport modes and actively manage patterns of growth in support of objectives which include identifying and pursuing opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport. Although it is recognised in paragraph 110 that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, it does not follow that all development in rural areas should be regarded as sustainably located.

There are basic services present in the village of Longhirst which include a bus stop, village hall and church. However, even these very limited services are over 1km away along a rural road which would likely discourage most future occupiers of the appeal proposal from walking on a regular basis, particularly if they are less mobile. For the same reasons, occupiers would be unlikely to access public transport from the bus stop.

Owing to the limited nature of the services in Longhirst, future occupiers are likely to use the larger settlements of Morpeth, Pegswood or Ashington to access the majority of their services and facilities. These are further away still and well beyond any reasonable walking distance. Accessing any service would require travel along unlit rural roads that would likely discourage cycling as a regular and convenient mode of transport. Consequently, travelling by car would be the most realistic and convenient option for most future occupiers when accessing any services. This would be the mode of transport used in almost all cases. For these reasons the appeal site is not in a sustainable location with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. As such the proposal would fail to meet criterion c) of paragraph 155.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would not benefit from any of the exceptions in paragraphs 154 or 155 of the Framework. Therefore, it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as defined in the Framework. I have also found that it would result in substantial harm to openness. As the proposal would fail to protect the Green Belt and would constitute inappropriate development, it would also conflict with [name] 7 and STP 8 of the Northumberland Local Plan (2022) (the NLP).

The appeal site is located in the open countryside for the purposes of the NLP, lying within a field and somewhat detached from the residential development at [site address] . As set out above, the site is a considerable distance from the edge of the closest settlement, Longhirst. As such it would not constitute development within or adjacent to a settlement referenced in Policy ST 1 of the NLP. The Policy sets out that housing development in the open countryside is supported if it meets the criteria set out in [name] 7 or HOU 8.

Policy HOU 7 relates to rural exception sites. There is no evidence before me to indicate that the proposal is for affordable housing and therefore this Policy has limited relevance. Policy HOU 8 sets out that the development of isolated homes in the open countryside will only be supported in certain circumstances such as the need to house a rural worker, conversion of a rural building or subdivision of an existing dwelling, none of which apply to the appeal proposal.

Located within the open countryside set away from existing built form and significantly detached from any settlement, the appeal site is not a suitable location for new housing having regard to the development plan policies. The proposal would conflict with [name] 1, HOU 7 and HOU 8 in this regard.

The appellant is proposing that the dwelling will be self-build. The Council considers that it has met its statutory obligations with regard to self-build, however the appellant argues that this is on the basis of counting earlier permissions. The appellant argues that based on the Council’s Monitoring Report there is, in reality, a 4-year shortfall in the delivery of self-build housing. Such a shortfall would be a material consideration in favour of granting planning permission.

However, given that this is only one dwelling, even if I were to conclude that the Council was failing in its duty to grant sufficient self-build permissions to meet demand, one dwelling would only make a very limited contribution towards addressing any shortfall. Notwithstanding this, there is no accompanying planning obligation that would ensure that the development would be genuinely self-build housing rather than market housing. Furthermore, the appellant has not provided any suggested wording for a planning condition to secure the property as self - build housing. However, in my view securing the development as self/custom build housing via a planning condition is unlikely to be enforceable and therefore would not meet the requirements of paragraph 57 of the Framework. The self-build consideration therefore carries limited weight in my decision.

The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in substantial harm to openness. The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Given the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm, relative to the comparatively minor benefits of the proposed scheme, the harm that would arise would not be clearly outweighed by the other considerations. Inherent in my above reasoning is that even if there was provision to secure the proposal as a self-build dwelling that contributed towards a shortfall, the benefits would still not clearly outweigh the substantial weight I am required to give to the Green Belt harm identified above.

I have considered all other matters raised but none outweigh the conclusions I have reached. For the reasons set out above, I dismiss the appeal.