Appeal 6003824

The appeal is dismissed.

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 (permission in principle) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle. The second stage (technical details consent) is when detailed proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first stage.

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 technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

No development plan policies are cited in the Council’s reasons for refusal. While the Council’s Committee Report refers to relevant policies, the appeal falls to be determined on the basis of the reasons for refusal as issued. Nevertheless, in exercising my duty1 I have had regard to those policies in my assessment below.

The Council did not raise any concerns in respect of the proposed land use or the amount of development. Therefore, the main issues are: • whether the development would be in a suitable location having regard to transport accessibility and highway safety; • whether the proposed dwellings would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to national policy; and, 1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 • if the proposal 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 the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The site is undeveloped and lies within the urban periphery of [site address] . Although it is within reasonable walking distance of a good range of facilities and services available at Milton local centre, access would be via [address] and [address]. [address] is an unlit single-width carriageway running along the hillside, with no verge for much of the section between the site and its junction with [address]. While private driveways provide some opportunities for vehicles to pass, a footway is present along only part of this stretch and terminates before the junction where the carriageway is tightly constrained by stone walls on both sides. At this point, forward visibility in both directions is reduced.

The appellant has drawn attention to alternative routes that could reduce conflicts with passing vehicles. However, neither the public footpath to the north nor the unmade track to the south of the site would be attractive or suitable for all non-motorised users. Their use would also likely be curtailed during periods of inclement weather and hours of darkness. The accessibility characteristics of the site would therefore be likely to discourage some residents from walking or cycling, particularly at certain times, but they would not prevent such journeys altogether. Some occupants, visitors and other users would still choose, or need, to travel along [address] on foot or by cycle.

[address] does not appear to carry particularly large volumes of motorised traffic, and its alignment is such that vehicle speeds are moderated in places. Nonetheless, it functions as a through route and vehicle movements are not limited to those living immediately nearby. In circumstances where walking and cycling would be discouraged but not eliminated, non-motorised users would continue to share the lane with vehicular traffic in places. Indeed, third party representations explain that the lane is used by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

Given the limited attractiveness and convenience of non-motorised routes, occupants of the development would be likely to rely more heavily on the private car for day-to-day journeys. Although traffic generation associated with up to four dwellings would not be substantial, it would nonetheless result in an increase in vehicular movements along [address]. Additional traffic would intensify interactions between vehicles and those pedestrians and cyclists who do use the lane, increasing the potential for conflict and the associated risk to highway safety.

Paragraphs 115, 116 and 117 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) require that the effects of development on highway safety are mitigated to an acceptable degree and that proposals should seek to minimise conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. While the appellant has emphasised the site’s proximity to services and the local centre, and provided an indicative access plan, there no substantive evidence to demonstrate that safe and convenient access for all pedestrians and cyclists could be achieved. The likely pattern of travel would therefore result in increased vehicle usage of [address], with implications for the safety of non-motorised users. This would not be mitigated by the use of electric vehicles.

I have had regard to the appeal decisions2 cited by the appellant insofar as they are relevant. However, in this case the determinative issue is whether the increase in vehicular movements along [address] arising from up to four additional dwellings would give rise to unacceptable highway safety effects. While the site’s proximity to the urban area means it is not inherently unsustainable, I find that the potential residual risk to highway safety is a matter that goes to the heart of whether the location of the development is acceptable in principle.

For these reasons, I conclude that the development would not be in a suitable location with regard to accessibility and highway safety. It would therefore conflict with Policy CSP1 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and [site address] [name] 2006–2026, insofar as it seeks to ensure that development is easy to access and is available to all users. Furthermore, the proposal would be contrary to the aims of the Framework which, amongst other objectives, requires development to provide safe and suitable access for all users.

The appellant agrees that the proposed development does not meet any of the exceptions set out at paragraph 154 of the Framework, including criterion (e). The disagreement instead relates to whether the development should be regarded as not inappropriate under the provisions of paragraph 155.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that development on grey belt land should not be regarded as inappropriate development where specific criteria are met. The main parties agree, and I have no reason to take a contrary view, that the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan (paragraph 155 (a)), and that the ‘[name] relating to major development do not apply (paragraph 15 (d)). There is also a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed, arising from the Council’s five-year housing land supply shortfall (paragraph 155(b)), to which I return later.

Paragraph 155 (c) requires that development on grey belt land is located in a sustainable location. While the appeal site occupies an edge-of-urban position and is not remote from services, sustainability in this context requires more than theoretical proximity. It depends on whether day-to-day movements can be undertaken safely and conveniently by sustainable modes.

For the reasons already given, the characteristics of [address] would discourage many journeys on foot or by cycle, without preventing them altogether. As a result, future occupants would be likely to rely heavily on the private car. This pattern of movement would increase vehicular use of [address], intensifying interactions with those pedestrians and cyclists who do use it and giving rise to highway safety concerns. In these circumstances, I find that the site would not function as a sustainable location in practice. The proposal therefore fails to satisfy paragraph 155(c) of the Framework. 2 Appeal references: APP/P3420/W/3348254; 6000779 and 6000780.

Openness has both spatial and visual aspects. In this case the appeal site has a sense of spaciousness and openness that contributes to the semi-rural setting of the development. Introduction of the up to four dwellings would have a greater impact on openness spatially. In visual terms the prominence of the development would likely be reduced by its position adjacent existing development, notwithstanding that overall height and appearance of the scheme are not matters for this appeal. Further, direct views to the proposal from outside of the site would be somewhat restricted to those along [address] and, to a lesser extent, the public footpath to the north off [address]. The openness of the Green Belt would therefore be reduced in both spatial and visual terms, but overall, this harm would likely be moderate.

Drawing these findings together, I conclude that that the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and it would result in harm to its openness

The appellant has referred to the Council’s Green Belt proposals within its emerging local plan. Given the early stage of plan preparation, I afford this very limited weight and it does not alter my conclusions.

The proposal would result in social and economic benefits associated with the provision of new dwellings. This includes a contribution to the supply of homes, and economic benefits from construction and local spend. In the context of the housing land supply position the provision of homes carries significant weight.

The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. I have concluded that the provision of new dwellings would carry significant weight. This must be balanced against the substantial weight that the Framework directs must be given to any harm to the Green Belt, and also my findings in relation to the location of the development. The other considerations referred to above do not, individually or cumulatively, outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harms. Therefore, very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply in accordance with the Framework, with only 4.02 years reported. This engages paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework. However, paragraph 11(d) (i) states that there are circumstances where the application of policies in the Framework to protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the proposal. Footnote 7 confirms that such policies include those relating to Green Belt. As the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Indeed, the proposal would also be contrary to the Framework for the reasons given above, Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.