Appeal 6003338

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for residential development comprising up to 4 dwellinghouses at [site address] , Upton, [site address] , Upton [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02005/PIP.

The proposal is for permission in principle (PiP). Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The PiP consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or PiP principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’ (TDC)) 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 permitted. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application if PiP is granted. There is no dispute between the main parties with regard to the amount of development and land use, and I have no reason to take a different view. I shall therefore focus on the matters of location in my determination of the appeal.

An applicant can apply for PiP for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum net number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, PiP has been sought for up to 4 dwellings on the appeal site. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is whether the site is a suitable location for residential development, having particular regard to the local and national policy relating to accessibility to services and facilities, and the character and appearance of the area.

The settlement of Upton offers very limited services, comprising only a village hall and a single daily bus service to Huntingdon. The nearest bus stop is approximately 322 metres northeast of the site, but neither the bus stop nor the village hall are connected to the site by a pedestrian footpath. I observed [address] to be lightly trafficked at the time of my visit. Notwithstanding its 20mph speed limit, in the vicinity of the appeal site, it is a single-track, unlit road with occasional passing places These circumstances do not lend themselves to safe use by pedestrians and would be unlikely to encourage cycling to the services and facilities, in particular at times of darkness or adverse weather conditions. Furthermore, the details before me indicate a limited frequency of service and therefore, I cannot be sure that buses would be an attractive or probable option.

Alconbury, located some 2.1 miles away would provide for services such as primary school, GP surgery, public house and a convenience store. My attention has been drawn to a Public Right of Way connecting the appeal site to [name]. However, this route crosses agricultural fields and in any event, services remain limited with only a public house on offer. The larger settlement of Huntingdon, which would provide for a greater range of services and employment opportunities, is some distance away and future occupiers of the dwellings would therefore be heavily reliant upon private motor vehicles to access everyday services.

Having regard to the above the appeal site is constrained in terms of accessibility. The proposed development would not provide the opportunity to maximise the use of sustainable transport facilities, even when accepting that the site is in a rural location. Accordingly, the site is not well located due to its poor accessibility and lack of infrastructure within the wider settlement. This draws the proposal into conflict with Policies LP2 and LP9 of the Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036 (LP).

Although located outside of the settlement of Upton with limited access to services I do not find that the appeal site would be isolated in the context of paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

For the reasons stated above, the proposal would not be in an appropriate location having regard to local and national planning policy, in particular regard to its countryside location and accessibility. Accordingly, I find conflict with Policies LP2 and LP9 of the LP which, collectively, and amongst other things, seek to direct development to sites within development limits and accessible locations subject to certain exceptions.

The appeal site comprises an irregular shaped plot of land laid to grass, with occasional trees. It is located adjacent to a pond and benefits from a high degree of visual enclosure due to the heavily landscaped boundary and high fencing to the site frontage.

My attention has been drawn to previous appeal decisions1 on nearby sites. I concur with my Inspector colleagues that the built-up area of Upton is focused to the north-east of the appeal site and that when descending the narrow lane of [address] there is a clear transition in character where development becomes looser in its pattern with a strong verdant character and appearance with roadside vegetation along [address].

The appellant submits that recent permissions2 proximate to the appeal site now mean that the proposed development would appear as infilling. Whilst the LP provides some guidance on the definition of a built-up area it does not specifically define infill, nor is there a definition in the Framework. Whether the proposal would represent infill is a question of planning judgement on an assessment of the site and its surroundings.

The evidence before me indicates that the permissions referred to arose under a different policy context, involving the conversion and re-use of existing buildings in the countryside. In any event, although the site is proximate to existing built form, I am not convinced that the proposal constitutes infill development. Irrespective of the detailed design, scale and form of development, that would be determined at the TDC stage, given the width and extent of the appeal site it appears relatively substantial, and by no means limited. Furthermore, the appeal site would be separated from the cluster of residential properties at [address] to the west by an undeveloped area of land. A substantial area of undeveloped land would also remain between the appeal site and the Upton Park caravan site, which lies to the east of the appeal site. [name] do not disagree that infill generally refers to development between existing development, to my mind despite the site having built form either side the proposal would not result in the completion of a gap between an otherwise continuous and contiguous frontage. For these reasons, I do not concur that the proposal would constitute infill development or that it would ‘round off’ of the southern edge of the village.

The introduction of residential dwellings in this location would encroach into the countryside which draws the proposal into conflict with Policies LP9, LP10 b), LP11 and LP12 a, b, c, f and i) of the LP. Collectively, and amongst other things, these seek to support opportunities for sustainable development in the countryside whilst protecting the character of existing settlements and recognising the intrinsic character of the surrounding countryside. However, given the presence of built form proximate to it and the high degree of visual containment the site benefits from tempers the harm in respect of character and appearance when having regard to its countryside location.

I am satisfied that the appeal site could accommodate the quantum of development proposed. I see no reason why the development could not be designed to be made compliant with policies in respect of matters such as detailed design, access and parking, landscaping, drainage and the living conditions of future and neighbouring occupiers at the TDC stage. However, compliance with these policies would be a neutral matter. 11 APP/H0520/W/15/3029722 and APP/H0520/W/15/3029724 2 17/00019/FUL, 20/00183/FUL and gypsy and travellers site known as [address]

The Council advises it can only demonstrate 3.94 years supply of deliverable housing sites. The application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance do not provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, as outlined in paragraph 11di) of the Framework. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined in Paragraph 11dii) is engaged. In such circumstances, it states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would support of the Framework’s objective to boost housing supply. While it is for up to 4 no dwellings, nonetheless, it would make a small but important contribution to addressing the shortfall from the requisite five-year housing land supply. It would also align with the Framework insofar as it acknowledges that small-scale developments can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement and built out quickly.

There would be benefits arising from the construction period and future spend of occupants giving support to the local services and facilities in other villages. However, construction benefits would be short term.

In undertaking the planning balance, it is recognised that the proposed development would conflict with the housing strategy of the development plan and where it seeks to ensure development is in accessible locations. These policies are broadly consistent with the Framework where it states that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth. The proposal would give rise to some limited adverse impacts through an incursion into the countryside and that future occupants would be heavily reliant upon the private motor vehicle due to poor accessibility. However, it is considered that these impacts are relatively modest in scale, and do not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal, namely its contribution towards housing land supply.

The Council has suggested conditions and notes in the event that PiP was to be approved. However, the PPG3 makes it clear that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of PiP, whose terms may only include the site location, the type and amount of development. In any case, the Council’s statement has been shared with the appellant who will be aware of the

Accordingly, the material considerations in this case indicate that planning permission should be granted. The appeal is therefore allowed.