Appeal 6003756

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has corrected the ownership certificate during the appeal. Notice of the proposal has been served. I am therefore satisfied that all interested parties have had the opportunity to comment.

During the appeal, the appellant submitted a signed [name] (UU) pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). It relates to planning obligations regarding financial contributions towards affordable housing. The Council has had the opportunity to comment on this and is no longer contesting the second reason for refusal in respect of this issue. I see no reason to take a different view and shall return to this matter later.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposal on openness; 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 proposal.

The appeal site is an undeveloped plot of land in the Green Belt. It is proposed to redevelop the site to provide a new house. Policy CP11 of the [name] 2011 (the [name]) emphasises the general presumption against inappropriate development. Policy DM2 of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document 2013 (the DMPLDD) states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate with certain exceptions; approval will not be given for new buildings other than those specified in national policy and other relevant guidance. These policies are generally consistent with the Framework. The Framework sets out certain exceptions where development in the Green Belt is not inappropriate development. I have considered each exception put forward by the appellant.

The development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where all the criteria set out in paragraph 155 of the Framework apply. The main parties agree that the proposal would meet parts a) and b), and part d. does not apply. I have no reason to reach a contrary view. Consideration therefore turns to whether the proposal would meet part c) of paragraph 155.

The appeal site is outside of a settlement boundary as defined in the settlement hierarchy within the [name], but it is identified as an ‘other settlement’ on the policies map. This however does not confirm that the site is sustainably located. Regard should be had to proximity to services and facilities, walking and cycling routes and public transport options.

I am mindful that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, as advocated at paragraph 110 of the Framework. However, because [site address] has no services or facilities, the day-to-day needs of future residents could not be met locally and would require travel to other settlements. The appeal site is accessed by a narrow single track from [site address] . [site address] is a rural road with narrow sections. Neither has a footpath or lighting.

Even if the 30-minute walk to Sarratt is considered to be reasonable when considering the Institute of Highways and Transportation’s guidelines, it seems that this would require walking along roads with no footpath or lighting. Whilst public right of ways could be utilised, this is still a considerable walk. Given the walking conditions, it is unlikely that future residents would regularly walk to and from Sarratt.

Whilst cycling may be possible and cycle storage would be provided, the lack of lighting along the roads makes this more difficult after dusk or during inclement weather. There also appears to be no regular public transport service within easy reach of the site without reliance on a private car. While the additional vehicle movements generated by the proposal would be limited and would not significantly increase congestion, the lack of genuinely sustainable travel alternatives would result in future residents being heavily reliant on private car use to access services and facilities. Potential car-sharing opportunities would not alter this underlying car dependency.

The pedestrian and cycle access is typical of some rural areas, but this does not in itself justify further residential development, particularly where existing residents may depend heavily on private car use or the housing was constructed under a different policy context. I note the approval for additional housing near the appeal site1. However, this was granted through the prior approval process, which involves a much narrower assessment than a full planning application and therefore carries limited weight in favour of the proposal.

While the Highway Authority raises no objection and their comments on accessibility are noted, it is ultimately for the decision maker to assess the locational constraints and determine whether the site is sustainable, which is a matter of planning judgment. Even if the Highway Authority has previously advised that rural lanes can safely accommodate shared pedestrian and vehicular use 2, that assessment related to a different site in another authority area. There is no substantive evidence that the circumstances are directly comparable, and therefore that conclusion carries limited weight in this case.

The Inspector’s conclusions in the Land rear of 17–49 Church Lane3 case were based on a site that benefited from access to at least some day‐to‐day services, on schemes that made a greater contribution to the housing land supply and delivered additional benefits. In contrast, the appeal scheme proposes a single house in a location with no services and is therefore materially different from the appeal scheme. While it is recognised that future residents would have the same access to services and public transport as existing residents, this does not make the location sustainable in planning terms.

Locational sustainability is inherently site specific. In the Woodside House4 case, the Inspector accepted car dependence having regard to paragraph 110 of the Framework. Reference is made to a nearby bus stop in that case, which distinguishes it from the appeal site. Given this difference, I therefore give that decision only limited weight.

Drawing all of the above together, I find that the appeal site is not in a sustainable location, even taking its rural context into account. It would not meet part c) and would therefore not be an exception under paragraph 155 of the Framework.

The exception at part e) of paragraph 154 of the Framework allows for the limited infilling in villages. The Framework does not define the terms ‘limited infilling’ or ‘villages’. The Courts have held that a defined village boundary in a Development Plan is not conclusive in determining whether a site is within a village or not. The physical circumstances of a site and its relationship to a settlement are relevant.

[site address] is a linear settlement characterised mainly by ribbon residential development, interspersed with countryside and farmland. It has no local focal point and offers virtually no services or facilities. It is also physically and visually separated from both Commonwood and Sarratt by areas of open countryside. Although [site address] may be similar in size to Sarratt, the level of local services is 1 Council Ref: 20/1335/PDA 2 Appendix 7 of the [name] of Case 3 Appendix 8 of the [name] of Case - Appeal A Ref: APP/P1940/W/22/3311477 Appeal B Ref: APP/P1940/W/22/3311479 4 Appendix 9 of the [name] of Case - Appeal Ref: APP/M3645/W/24/3347328 not comparable. Its size may have increased in recent years, but based on my observations, the function, form and character of [site address] remain far more consistent with a hamlet than a village. The lack of services and facilities is considered alongside the dispersed pattern of development, the lack of a defined centre, and the predominantly rural setting to make this distinction.

Reference to online sources referring to [site address] as a village and its historic presence on maps is noted, but are not decisive considerations, particularly as the assessment established through case law is what is observed on the ground.

As my assessment on the ground has led me to conclude that the appeal site is not located within a village, it is not necessary to consider whether the proposal would amount to limited infilling. Consequently, the appeal decisions cited in the Planning Statement5 are not directly relevant, as they appear to consider limited infilling, which is not in dispute here.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not meet part e) of paragraph 154 of the Framework.

As the proposal would not meet any of the exceptions set out above, it would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would conflict with Policy CP11 of the [name] and Policy DM2 of the DMPLDD, the purposes of which have been set out above.

While Policy 1 of the Sarratt Neighbourhood Plan 2025 supports new development in villages and hamlets, it requires proposals to accord with the principles of sustainable development set out in the Framework and the Development Plan. [name] have found the appeal site to not be in a sustainable location and to conflict with the Development Plan, it would not gain support from Policy 1, even though the Council identified no harm to be caused to the local character.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt; it can be perceived both spatially and visually. It is possible that a development which would harm openness could be acceptable visually and vice versa. The proposal would introduce a one-and-a-half storey house into a currently open site, resulting in a clear loss of spatial openness. Features such as parking areas and domestic paraphernalia would further erode the openness. The introduction of such a permanent built form would also be visible from some of the surrounding housing, with public views from the public right of way. This would therefore lead to a visual loss of openness.

In the Petherick Pastures6 case, the Inspector found that there would be no change to openness. However, it seems that this site included several existing buildings, which is different to the appeal site. The same conclusions on openness can therefore not be applied.

As the effect on openness would be localised, the degree of harm would be moderate. Nevertheless, irrespective of whether the appeal site makes a significant 5 Land adjoining [address], [name] and Land at [address], Flaunden 6 Appellant Planning Statement contribution to the openness of the Green Belt, the proposal would conflict with the objectives of the Framework in keeping Green Belt land permanently open.

Policy CP4 of the [name] requires all new development resulting in a net gain of one or more homes to contribute towards affordable housing, with the use of commuted payments towards off site provision considered for small sites. The Council’s evidence sets out a robust case for an acute need for affordable housing in the area and the importance of small sites in contributing to the provision of such housing.

The submitted UU obligates the appellant to pay an agreed sum to the Council towards off site affordable housing provision. The contribution sought has been demonstrated to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, is directly related to the development and is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Consequently, the obligation would accord with the criteria of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and with paragraph 58 of the Framework. I can therefore reasonably take it into account.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. With a supply of 1.7 years, which is a considerable shortfall, and a 2024 [name] figure of 30%. This has not been disputed by the Council.

Mindful of the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, the proposal would deliver one home, and as it is a small site, it could be delivered quickly. Although this would make a small contribution to the area’s housing supply, every home matters. Given the extent of the undersupply and that there is an evidenced need for homes of this size, I give this benefit moderate weight. An off site affordable housing contribution would be secured and in view of the supply position noted above, I afford this provision moderate weight.

There would be economic and social benefits associated with the proposal, through the construction, as well as spending and support for businesses post-development. However, these benefits are likely to be fairly limited on account of the quantum of development proposed.

I give the visual enhancement to the appearance of the site limited weight, given that the appeal site is not in a poor condition.

The proposal would redevelop a vacant site, but there is nothing substantive before me to show that it would reduce the pressure on other sites in the Green Belt. This consideration is therefore of limited weight.

The Council raised no objection on design and character grounds, the impact on neighbouring houses, the future living conditions, landscaping and trees, biodiversity gain and energy efficiency. Compliance with relevant national and local planning policies on these matters, and the associated benefits would be required in any case. Electric vehicle charging is required under Building Regulations and is therefore also a neutral consideration.

Dissatisfaction with the pre-application advice is not a matter for me to address in determining this appeal.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the terms set out by the Framework and would result in the loss of openness of the Green Belt. As required by the Framework, substantial weight is given to this harm.

Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Against this harm, I give moderate weight to the provision of housing and the affordable housing contribution. Limited weight is given to the economic and social benefits, visual enhancements and the reduction on pressure on other sites. In taking all factors into consideration relating to this appeal, the weight afforded to other considerations in support of the appeal would not, either individually or collectively, clearly outweigh the high level of harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

Having regard to paragraph 11d i) of the Framework, as I have found that very special circumstances do not exist, the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this instance. Even though the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, paragraph 11d ii) of the Framework is not engaged.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.