Appeal 6003761

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal has been made against the failure of the Council to determine the application within the prescribed period. As such, it did not issue a decision notice or accompanying reason for refusal. However, the Council’s Statement identifies two concerns with the proposal, which establish the Main Issue below.

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 two 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 two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted.1 All other matters are considered as part of the technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The application includes a proposed site plan which demonstrate how the site might be developed. I have treated this information as illustrative only.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development, with particular reference to: 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including the effect on openness, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • if the proposed development would be inappropriate development, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances.

The appeal site is in the Green Belt. The Council refer to Policy BNE5 of the Chorley Local Plan 2012 to 2026 (2015) (LP) which covers circumstances where redevelopment of all previously developed sites in the Green Belt would be permitted. This policy is inconsistent with the Framework as the circumstances do not reflect the exceptions to inappropriate development at paragraph 154 or 155. Accordingly, I have relied on the Framework in determining whether the appeal proposal is inappropriate development.

The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 153 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, stating that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that the development of homes on grey belt land should not be regarded as inappropriate, if all of criterion a) to d) are met. In this case, the Council assert that criterion c) is not met, namely that ‘the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework.’

The PPG states that whether locations are sustainable should be determined in light of local context and site or development-specific considerations. Paragraph 110 of the Framework acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, which should be taken into account. Paragraph 115 of the Framework seeks to ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location. It also aims to ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.

‘As the crow flies’ the appeal site is not isolated and is located reasonably close to the village of Mawdesley which has a range of facilities and services, including shops, a post office, school, pub and sports facilities. However, despite its reasonable proximity, the appeal site is not closely associated with the village and accessing it would require a long circuitous route either to the east or west before heading north to meet the southern extent of the village. By foot, this would be predominantly via narrow lanes, typically unlit and largely with no pavements.

The appellant has referred to guidance which is said to identify 800m as a walking distance, although larger distances are also said to be acceptable depending on circumstances. Even if the goods and services of Mawdesley are within this distance, in my judgement, because of the route, the pedestrian environment and the relatively limited range of goods available, residents are very unlikely to choose to walk to the village. Cyclists would also be deterred by the need to use predominantly unlit narrow rural roads with limited opportunities to take refuse from passing vehicles. In all reasonable likelihood, most journeys undertaken from the dwelling would be by private car for reasons of convenience, safety and speed.

Although the Council suggest some additional services are available in the nearest larger village of Eccleston, I have very little information regarding the location or accessibility of higher-order services, such as employment or health services, or indeed secondary schools. Nevertheless, given the limited services in Mawdesley, residents would need to travel further afield to Eccleston to meet some day-to-day needs. These would not be met by the limited shops and facilities at [address] to the south-east of the appeal site. I am not aware if there are bus services or a safe and convenient cycle route to Eccleston, and it is not within walking distance. This would result in greater reliance on the private car rather than limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.

For these reasons, the appeal site would not be in a sustainable location for the development with particular reference to paragraph 110 and 115 of the Framework. Accordingly, the development would not satisfy paragraph 155 c) of the Framework. That being the case, the proposal would not benefit from the provisions of paragraph 155, even if I were to find that the other requirements of the paragraph have been met.

No other arguments have been advanced to suggest that the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Therefore, I conclude that the development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. The PPG provides advice on the factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt, with openness capable of having both spatial and visual aspects.

The specific location within the site, and design of the proposed dwelling are ultimately matters for the technical details consent stage. Nonetheless, it is inevitable that the introduction of a dwelling and associated domestic paraphernalia would give rise to a spatial loss of openness on the appeal site as it would result in development where there is presently none. Although views would be partially screened by the hedgerow along the site frontage, the form and massing of any residential development would be apparent from [site address] . The site would therefore appear notably more urbanised than is presently the case.

Consequently, although it would be localised, the proposal would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt and would conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

The appeal site comprises a rectangular paddock, enclosed by post and rail fencing on three sides, on the northern side of [site address] , a narrow country lane. There is an existing track along the western boundary, but the site is surrounded by paddocks, field boundaries and open countryside contributing positively to the predominantly sparse, rural character and appearance of the area.

I have little evidence before me in respect of the lawful status of neighbouring land uses, but buildings which are equestrian in appearance can be glimpsed through breaks in the landscaping margin along the opposite side of [site address] . There also appeared to be buildings beyond the track to the west, which are contained within a dense block of trees and landscaping. Although the area is not devoid of built form, a single dwelling, and the use of its domestic curtilage, would be much more urbanised and domestic in its character, materially different from this surrounding context. It would appear as a remote and discordant form of development, even with sensitive siting, design and appropriate soft landscaping.

Moreover, whilst there are distant views across the site toward the rear of houses along [address], the proposal would have little visual and no physical relationship with other dwellings. The existing mature trees and hedgerows along the site boundaries would provide a degree of visual containment thereby reducing some of the adverse impact, but this would not sufficiently mitigate the harm from the proposal in this location, particularly during the summer months.

In conclusion, the location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy 1 of the [name] Local Development Framework (2012) (CS) in so far as it seeks to protect the character of suburban and rural areas.

The Government is seeking to significantly boost the supply of housing. The Framework recognises that small sites can make an important contribution to the Council’s housing supply. Although the proposed development is for just one dwelling, this would contribute positively to the Council’s housing land supply and would provide social benefits. There would also be economic benefits in terms of the generation of economic activity during the construction of the dwelling and the provision of a home to residents who would contribute to the local economy. However, the small scale of the proposed development limits these benefits.

My attention has been drawn to a permission in principle2 granted by the Council on land described as being 200m to the west of the appeal site, on the opposite side of [site address] . I do not have full details of this permission or the full context of the site before me to fully understand its relationship with Mawdesley, or its distance and accessibility to services and facilities by a range of transport modes. I also note that the Site Plan provided by the appellant shows that the site is adjacent to another dwelling and the Council describe it as part of a string of residential properties extending along the road. The site is not therefore directly comparable with the position of the appeal site, remote from other dwellings. I therefore afford this permission in principle limited weight, and I have determined the appeal on its individual planning merits and circumstances. 2 [name] 25/00641/PIP

The development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and it would result in harm to openness. I have also found that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that substantial weight is to be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. 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.

The other considerations described above would not, in their totality, clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and other harm that I have identified. Therefore, the very special circumstances required to justify a grant of permission in principle have not been demonstrated. Consequently, the development would conflict with the Framework.

Even if I was to conclude that there is a shortfall in the five-year housing land supply on the scale suggested by the appellant, footnote 7 of the Framework 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 strong reason for refusing planning permission and the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of development.

Accordingly, the site is not suitable in principle for residential development. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.