Appeal 6003637

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development set out above is taken from the description set out in application form. I have, however, omitted ‘on land to the east of [name], 150 [site address] , Hutton, [postcode] ’ as such wording does is not a description of development. I have, however, used that address in the banner heading above as it is more precise than the site address of land at [site address] , Hutton given in the application form.

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 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.

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 appeal accordingly.

As the appeal site adjoins other residential development and is large enough to accommodate a single dwelling, and noting that a detailed consideration of impacts would be carried out at the technical details consent stage, I am satisfied 1 [name] in [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] the proposal is acceptable in respect of the relevant considerations of land use and the amount of development.

The main issue is therefore whether the site is suitable for residential development, in particular whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and if it would be, whether the resulting harm, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

The appeal site is within the Green Belt. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) establishes that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate other than for specified exceptions that are set out in paragraphs 154 and 155. One such exception that is relevant to this appeal is paragraph 154(e), limited infilling in villages.

Policy G1 of the South Ribble Local Plan (LP), adopted July 2015, states that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt subject to several exceptions. As LP Policy G1 identifies limited infilling in villages as one such exception it is consistent with the Framework insofar as is relevant to this appeal.

The appeal site lies outside of the defined village settlement of Hutton. Nonetheless, in the case law2 highlighted by the main parties, it was common ground that although the boundary of a village defined in a local plan would be a relevant consideration in determining whether or not a proposed development constitutes limited infilling in a village, it would not necessarily be determinative. Thus, consideration should also be given to the situation ‘on the ground’ as well as relevant policy.

The appeal site forms part of a parcel of undeveloped grassland that lies within a small cluster of buildings within an open agricultural landscape. This gives the site and its surroundings a loose form and notably rural character. In contrast, Hutton is characterised by a more densely built environment. The appeal site is some distance outside of the built-up area of Hutton, which can be accessed along [site address] and [address], with several large fields separating it from the village core. Given this markedly different character, the separation distance from the settlement core, and the absence of a continuum of development between the main built-up area and the appeal site, there is a clear and distinct sense of division between it and Hutton.

For these reasons, I do not consider that the appeal site can be regarded as part of Hutton either physically or visually. Therefore, even if I were to find that the proposal amounts to limited infilling, it cannot meet the exception at paragraph 154(e) of the Framework as the appeal site is not in a village.

In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the appeal decision3 referred to by the appellant. I note in that case, the Council accepted that the appeal site was in the village of Whitestake and the Inspector did not reach a finding on that matter as it was not in dispute. The site plan that has been provided, however, shows that 2 [name] v SSCLG and Gravesham Borough Council [2015] [name] 195 3 Appeal ref: APP/F2360/W/20/3244797 although that site was undeveloped and there were undeveloped pockets of land nearby, it was otherwise in a relatively densely built-up area with strong ribbons of development along the surrounding roads. Even taking into consideration that there are dwellings on either side of the appeal site and on the opposite side of [site address] nearby, the context of the proposal before me is distinctly different to that of the Whitestake case. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the Whitestake appeal decision supports the conclusion that the proposal before me should reasonably be read as part of Hutton village.

Even if I were to agree with the appellant that the circumstances of the appeal decisions4 that the Council has referred to in support of its position are very different to the appeal before me, that does not alter my conclusion that in this case, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal site does not lie within a village. Furthermore, as my findings in this regard was not based upon the lack of bus stops and footway, any inconsistency in the Council’s application of such a criteria when considering whether a site is within a village in other permission in principle applications does not weigh in favour of this proposal.

In conclusion, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as it would not comprise limited infilling in villages and, therefore, conflicts with LP Policy G1 as well as the Framework.

The appeal development would contribute towards the Government’s aims of boosting the supply of housing, as set out in the Framework. However, since the proposal is for a single dwelling, the contribution to housing supply would inherently be small, as would any associated economic benefits. Consequently, I have given these benefits limited weight.

As the site is undeveloped grassland the proposal would introduce new built form where presently there is none. This would result in a spatial loss of openness.

The existing dwellings on close to the appeal site would, to some extent, limit viewpoints from where the proposed house could be seen from further afield. However, the required access would open up the frontage, which is currently bounded by a hedge, and thereby increase the visibility of the site from [site address] . As such, the proposed dwelling, associated parking and domestic paraphernalia would be conspicuous, thereby affecting the openness of the Green Belt in visual terms.

I thus find that there would be a loss of, and harm to, the openness of the Green Belt arising from the proposal. This would conflict with paragraph 142 of the Framework which states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

The appeal site adjoins the [name] listed 150 [site address] and is separated from the [name] listed 138 and 140 [site address] by the remaining part of the field that the appeal site forms part of. They are within plots bound on all sides by hedges or fences. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed 4 Appeal ref: APP/F2360/W/21/2378969 & APP/F2360/W/24/3342311 Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting.

150 [site address] was, according to the list description, a farmhouse and is now a house. It is two storeys with a thatched roof. Its significance and special interest, insofar as relevant to this appeal, derives from its aesthetic value due to its attractive design.

138 and 140 [site address] is a single storey cruck-framed building, now in use as two cottages. The building is now rendered with a tiled roof, but, according to the list description, contains significant elements of the original timber structure. Based on my observations and the evidence before me, I find that the special interest of this listed building, insofar as it relates to this appeal, derives from the historic interest from its surviving fabric, use of traditional materials and construction techniques.

Given the level of detail provided at this stage and the relationship of the appeal site to these listed buildings, I see no reason why a development comprising one dwelling could not be designed to ensure it preserves their setting and significance. On this basis, I am satisfied that the heritage impacts of the proposed development would be more appropriately considered at the technical details consent stage, where details of the built form, access arrangements and the site layout would be provided.

I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would also detract from openness. Framework paragraph 153 indicates that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. There would be minor benefits associated with the scheme, but these would not constitute the very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the location of the proposed development would be unacceptable in principle.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.