Appeal 6003451

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

As set out above there are two appeals on this site. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated.

The proposals are 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 2 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 2 stages. Appeal Decision 6003451 + 6003453

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeals accordingly.

Since determination of the planning applications the [site address] Local Plan 2020-2040 (the Emerging Local Plan) has reached an advanced stage. Based on the evidence before me, the Emerging Local Plan is at an advanced stage and the policies relevant to this appeal are not subject to unresolved objections. As such, I give significant weight to the policies of the Emerging Local Plan referred to in the Council’s evidence in accordance with Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The main issues in respect of appeals A and B are whether the sites are suitable for residential development, having regard to their location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, having particular regard to: • whether the proposals would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies, • whether the appeal sites would be appropriate locations for the proposed development having regard to the Councils development plan policies, and • whether any 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 proposals.

The appeal sites lie within the Green Belt, where the Framework states that development is inappropriate, other than in a few exceptions which are set out in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework. Policy PSD5 of the Emerging Local Plan sets out that planning permission will not be granted for inappropriate development within the Green Belt, in accordance with the approach set out within the Framework. I have therefore had regard to Policy PSD5 insofar as it is consistent with the Framework.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that the development of homes in the Green Belt is not inappropriate where the development would utilise grey belt land and where other certain circumstances apply. It is common ground that the site does not strongly contribute to any of the Green Belt purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework, and I see no reason to take a different view.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework sets out that the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all the following apply: a. The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; 1 Paragraph: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] Appeal Decision 6003451 + 6003453 b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; c. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework; and d. Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘[name] requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157.

The Council have found that criteria a) and b) would be met and that criteria d) would not apply as the proposed developments would not constitute major development. I have no reason to reach a different conclusion and as such, the only criterion in dispute is c), which is whether the developments would be in a sustainable location.

The appeal sites are not located close to any services or facilities, with the nearest being located over 3km away which is not a suitable distance for walking. The route would also be along an unlit road with no footways. The nearest bus stop is over 1km away and again would require walking along unlit roads with no footways; the bus also follows a restricted route that would only provide access to a school.

The appellant has suggested that cycling could be an option for future users, however, the distance combined with the route being unlit would make it an unsuitable option for most users to access day to day services and facilities.

It is therefore likely that future occupiers would be reliant on the use of a private car to access services and facilities. I note that the proposed dwellings would be provided with electric car charging points, however, this is a building regulation requirement, and the provision of such charging does not guarantee future occupiers would have zero emission vehicles.

Paragraph 110 of the Framework recognises opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. [name] recognise the sites are located within a rural area, Paragraph 115 of the Framework requires that sustainable transport modes are prioritised and safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. Other than providing electric car charging points, sustainable transport modes would not be prioritised, and safe and suitable access would almost entirely only be provided for users of private cars. As such, this does not attract weight as a benefit to the proposed schemes.

I therefore conclude that the proposed developments would not be located in a sustainable location. As such, the proposals would fail to meet the criteria outlined in Paragraph 155 of the Framework and would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. For the same reasons, the proposed developments would conflict with Policy PSD5 of the Emerging Local Plan and Paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework.

Policy PSD1 of the Emerging Local Plan sets out the Council’s overall development strategy which seeks to encourage the efficient use of land through windfall development that are amongst other things, physically well-related to existing settlements, infrastructure and sustainable transport modes. Appeal Decision 6003451 + 6003453

The appeal sites are located within the open countryside where Policy PSD4 of the Emerging Local Plan sets out criteria for the types of development permitted. None of which would relate to the appeal proposals.

The appeal proposals would therefore not be appropriately located and would be contrary to Policies PSD1 and PSD4 of the Emerging Local Plan which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development is well related to sustainable transport modes.

I note from the planning history that numerous developments have been granted close to the appeal site which predominantly relate to conversions of existing buildings, albeit these have not been commenced. The nearby developments do not however, change the limited access the appeal sites would have to services and facilities.

I acknowledge the extant use of the appeal site for commercial purposes which could result in a high number of vehicle movements, however, the Council have not found the proposed development would harm highway safety, so this has little impact on the proposal before me.

In any case, the provision of dwellings has already been established on the site, and I note that the appellant suggests that the existing commercial use is winding down. It is therefore unclear how the proposed development would further reduce vehicle movements to improve highway impact. Furthermore, there is very limited information to demonstrate that the existing high volume of movements was not acceptable or causing concerns. I therefore give the potential of reduced vehicle movements very little weight as a benefit in favour of the proposed appeal schemes.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites with a 3.08 year supply being identified by the appellant, which represents a substantial shortfall. The dwellings proposed would make a moderate but important contribution to the existing housing shortfall which attracts significant weight in favour of the proposed schemes.

Given the Councils shortfall in deliverable housing sites, I have had regard to Paragraph 11d of the Framework. However, footnote 7 therewith specifies that land designated as Green Belt is among the examples of specific policies which indicate that development should be restricted. The identified harm to the Green Belt provides a clear reason for refusing planning permission and the proposals would therefore not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

In conclusion, the proposals conflict with Policies PSD1, PSD4 and PSD5 of the Emerging Local Plan and national policy set out in the Framework which seeks to protect the Green Belt. There are no other considerations that outweigh that conflict and for this reason the appeals are dismissed.