Appeal 6003852

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for phased residential development of a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 9 self-build dwellings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/1809/PIP.

The proposal is for permission in principle. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle (PIP) consent route has two stages: the first establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (technical details consent - TDC) 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. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent TDC application, if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, land use and the amount of development proposed, with particular consideration as to: • Whether the appeal site is grey belt and whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and • Whether the location is suitable having regard to the spatial strategy in the

The appeal site (the site) is a roughly square area of land described as being around 0.48 hectares in area, and which is located to the south side of [address] where it becomes [address] at the junction with [address]. The site currently takes its vehicular access from [address] via a field gate located in its north-east corner.

The site is towards the western end of [site address] , a settlement defined as a village in the Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (consolidated 2007 & 2011) (the CDLP). It is located within the Chilterns National Landscape (CNL) and is also washed over by the Metropolitan Green Belt. The site is located around 2km south of [name], around 1.5km east of [name], around 7km west of Amersham and around 6.5km north-east of [name].

In spatial policy terms, Policy CS1 of the [name] for Chiltern District (2011) (the CSCD), directs housing development to the hierarchy of the more sustainable towns and larger villages, such as those noted above, within the area. The towns of Amersham and [name] lie outside the CNL, and, along with [name] and [name], are indented from the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Development within the Green Belt is controlled by Policy GB2 of the CDLP, where under Policy GB2(d), limited infilling as defined in Policy GB4, is allowed within settlement areas identified in Policy GB5 and the accompanying [name], of which [site address] is one such area. However, the application site is not within the areas of the village identified on the [name], where limited infilling under Policy GB5 would be acceptable. It therefore lies in open countryside within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

The Framework 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. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Certain forms of development are, however, not inappropriate and are listed as specific exceptions.

The primary issue is to determine if the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out exceptions to inappropriate development. The site would not comply with exceptions 154(a), 154(b), 154(c), 154(d), 154(f) or 154(h). With regards to 154(g) - limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL), there is no evidence before me that the site is within the curtilage of a residential dwelling. The site is a field/paddock area, with no visible evidence of previous structures or hard standing areas which would meet the definition of PDL in Annex 2 of the Framework. I find it would not meet the 154(g) exception.

Exception 154(e) relates to limited infilling in villages. The Framework does not define limited infilling. However, Policy GB4 of the CDLP, defines infilling as ‘the construction of one or two dwelling(s) in a small gap in an existing row of dwellings and other substantial buildings, which form an otherwise fully developed frontage to a road’. In the absence of any other definition, it is reasonable to use that given in

The site is bounded to the east by a residential property with equestrian facilities to its rear. Further residential properties are located south and east of this property. To the west of the site is a small development of three dwellings at The Orchards, with a further property known as [address] to their south, and which would sit south of the line of the southern boundary of the appeal site. Further properties are present to the west and south-west of the properties at The Orchards and [address].

Opposite the site, to the north side of [address] and [address] is a continuous line of development of residential dwellings, which continues further along [address]. The site is therefore surrounded to three sides by residential development, though the density of development to the southern side of the highway is much lower than that on the northern side.

The appeal site has a frontage of around 60 metres, though there is a further gap in development to its west, owing to the presence of an electrical sub-station adjacent to its north-west corner, a Public Right of Way (PRoW) to its west, and the general density of development beyond. Accordingly, the visual gap in development would be more than 100 metres. Therefore, I find it would not meet the conditions for limited infilling defined in Policy GB4 of the CDLP and would therefore be contrary to this policy. Consequently, it would also not meet the exception of paragraph 154(e) of the Framework for limited infilling in villages. The proposal would therefore not comply with any of the exceptions identified in paragraph 154.

There is disagreement between the main parties as to whether the appeal site constitutes grey belt land. Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where it utilises grey belt land subject to four criteria (a to d). Annex 2 of the Framework defines grey belt as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes a), b), or d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework. It also excludes land where the application of policies relating to areas or assets in footnote 7, (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

I have already found that the site would not represent previously developed land, it is therefore necessary to assess if, as any other land, it would strongly contribute to any of purposes a), b), or d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework, or whether areas or assets covered by footnote 7 policies are present, and whether it would therefore be Grey Belt land.

Paragraph 143 - Purpose a) is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) notes1 that villages should not be considered large built-up areas. As the appeal site is located at the western end of [site address] , defined in the CDLP as a village, it would not represent a large built-up area. The site is also contained by residential development to its east and west. Accordingly, the appeal proposal would not strongly contribute to the unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area.

Paragraph 143 - Purpose b) is to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. Again, the PPG is specific that this purpose relates to the merging of towns, not villages. As the nearest towns are between 6.5km and 7km away, in 1 Paragraph: 005 [name]: 64-005-20250225 accordance with the PPG, development of the appeal site would not strongly contribute to the merging of towns.

Paragraph 143 - Purpose d) is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. The site is not located within a historic town, nor is it within proximity to a historic town where development may affect the historic towns setting. It would, therefore, not strongly contribute to this purpose.

It is therefore necessary to establish if the site is located within an area where any of the restrictions identified in footnote 7 of the Framework are present, and if so, whether that restriction would provide a strong reason for refusal.

The site is within the CNL which is one of the restrictions identified in footnote 7 but is not limited by any of the other restrictions listed. Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) amended the duty placed on relevant authorities required by the Countryside and Right of Way Act 2000 (CRoW Act), requiring relevant authorities and decision makers to ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of protected landscapes, of which the CNL is one. It requires, as far as is reasonably practical, relevant authorities to seek to avoid harm and to contribute to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristics of [name].

Paragraph 189 of the Framework requires great weight to be given to protecting the scenic beauty of NL’s. However, having regard to my duties under the LURA and [name], the appeal proposal would be located within a built-up area towards the western end of the village. It would be surrounded on three sides by residential development, with mature hedges and trees to its northern and eastern boundaries, and beyond the PRoW to its west. Views of development on the site from [address] and [address] would be seen against the backdrop of other residential development in the village.

The southern boundary of the site is roughly at the mid-point of a larger paddock field. The southern boundary of this paddock field has an established hedge, interspersed with mature trees of a mix of deciduous and evergreen varieties. This hedge and tree belt is evident in following a similar pattern and line to the east and west, and further mature hedge and woodland is evident in fields to the south of it. Accordingly, I find this would screen much of the appeal proposal from any wider landscape views from within this area of the CNL. This could be further enhanced by the introduction of appropriate landscape treatment to the southern boundary of the site at the TDC stage.

The appeal site is located within area LCA 16.3 [name] of the Buckinghamshire Landscape Character Assessment (2011) document. This defines the key characteristics of the area as ‘a mosaic of arable field, rough grazing and paddocks are defined by hedgerows, with trees, and rural fencing, and occasionally interspersed with small clumps of woodland which create a landscape of both openness and enclosure.’ It further identifies ‘a high density of dispersed settlement, comprising small, nucleated villages and hamlets, which occasionally spread out along roads.’

Owing to the landscape character of the immediate area, and the constrained nature of the site within surrounding residential development, I find it would be read against the backdrop of its village setting in views from the PRoW and the wider landscape, its southern boundary following the general pattern and extent of development, on the southern side of the highway within this section of the village. I therefore judge the appeal proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the scenic beauty of the wider CNL, and would therefore conserve its natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristics. It follows, therefore, that I do not find that it would provide a strong reason for refusal.

Accordingly, I therefore find that the appeal site, as other land that does not strongly contribute to any of purposes a), b), or d) outlined in Paragraph 143 of the Framework, and with no footnote 7 restrictions present that would provide a strong reason for refusal, would represent Grey Belt land for the purposes of this appeal. It is now necessary to consider if the appeal proposal would meet tests a) to d) contained in paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Criterion a) requires that 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. I have already found the proposal would utilise grey belt land. The envelope of residential development within the village, would not be extended further into open countryside, though it would consolidate an area between existing development. There would, therefore, be limited encroachment into surrounding countryside. Combined with its modest size, the proposal would, therefore, not fundamentally affect the ability of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan, from serving all five of the Green Belt purposes. Therefore, I find the proposal would satisfy paragraph 155 a) of the Framework.

The proposal would provide between one and nine dwellings. The Council have an acute deficit to the 5-year housing land supply required to be demonstrated by the Framework. The Council also have a significant deficit in the supply of plots for Self-Build and [name]. There is, therefore, a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. I find the proposal would therefore accord with criterion b) of paragraph 155.

Turning to criterion c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework, there is no dispute between the parties that the appeal site is located within a sustainable location, with access to a small range of facilities within the village, and with further facilities available in nearby larger villages and towns accessible by public transport. Having particular regard to the requirements of paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework, I find criterion c) of paragraph 155 would be met.

As the proposal is not major development as defined by Annex 2 of the Framework, the requirement of criterion d) to comply with the ‘[name] is not applicable. As the proposed development would satisfy all the relevant criteria of paragraph 155 of the Framework, I therefore conclude that it would not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework.

For the avoidance of doubt, the exception at paragraph 155 does not expressly state a need to assess the development’s effect on the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, in line with footnote 55 of the Framework, the proposal should not be regarded as being harmful to openness. Further, as I have concluded that the proposal would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, I do not need to examine other considerations and whether these amount to very special circumstances.

The extent of consideration for permission in principle applications, and therefore related appeals, is limited to location, land use and amount of development. The appeal site is not within the built-up area of [site address] village defined in the [name], its land use is therefore that of open countryside within the Green Belt, with development subject to the controls of national Green Belt policy along with Policies GB2, GB4 and GB5 of the CDLP.

[name] have found the appeal site to be grey belt land as defined by the Framework, and the proposal not to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it follows that the appeal proposal would not be contrary to the Framework in terms of location and land use.

However, with regards to the development plan, new housing in the Green Belt is controlled by policies GB2, GB4 and GB5 of the CDLP. I have already found that the proposal would not meet the conditions for limited infilling defined in Policy GB4 of the CDLP, owing to it not being within the areas of [site address] village defined under Policy GB5 on the CDLP Proposal Map. It would therefore be contrary to Policies GB2, GB4 and GB5 of the CDLP.

With regards to the amount of development, in terms of the extent of development proposed relative to the size of the site, I find that it would provide sufficient space to accommodate the range of development proposed, though the extent of development and its form would be for determination at the TDC stage. Matters of access, turning and parking would also be for consideration at the TDC stage, were the appeal allowed, as would the provision of external amenity space for future occupants, and any landscape mitigation proposals.

I have had regard to the representations made at the application stage, though note that the comments listed under the representations section in the officers delegated report, seem possibly to relate to another application site, as there are significant references to roads and site conditions that do not occur at or immediately adjacent to the appeal site. Notwithstanding this, I have reviewed the significant number of representations received, noting that of the almost 100 representations received, the comments in support of the appeal application marginally outnumber those of objection.

Whilst concerns have been raised by residents regarding the potential impact of development on trees, wildlife and ecology, and in relation to overlooking, and the location, visibility and safety of any proposed vehicular access to the highway, these are all matters that would be addressed at the TDC stage were the appeal to be allowed.

The appeal site is located within flood zone 1. It is therefore in a low flood risk area, so there is no fundamental problem in relation to the location on this basis. However, concerns have been raised by residents in relation to surface water drainage. Again, this would be a matter that would be addressed at the TDC stage were the appeal to be allowed.

The Council have identified that they can currently demonstrate 0.75-years housing land supply. This is significantly below the 5-years supply of housing land required by the Framework. Accordingly, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged for decision making purposes. As the site is within the Green Belt, the policies within paragraph 11(d)(i) and Footnote 7 of the Framework are of relevance. However, the proposal would utilise grey belt land and would accord with the provision of paragraph 155 of the Framework. I have therefore found the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such, it would not provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development.

Further, the appeal site is within the CNL, which is one of the other limitations within paragraph 11(d)(i) and Footnote 7 of the Framework that is of relevance. However, I have found that the proposed development would not have a detrimental effect on the scenic beauty of the wider CNL, and would therefore conserve its natural beauty, special qualities and key characteristics. It follows therefore, that it would also not provide a strong reason for refusing the development.

Accordingly, paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework is engaged, which indicates that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would provide additional housing in a sustainable location which would support the government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. The proposal is for between one and nine dwellings, which in the context of the Council’s acute housing land supply deficit, would make a significant and important contribution towards overall housing supply. The proposal is also for self-build dwellings, which the Council also has an acute deficit in supply, relative to their statutory duty to provide sufficient self-build plots under the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. I therefore attach significant weight to both these matters.

The proposal would provide local economic benefit, both in the construction phase and in the longer term with future occupiers supporting local businesses and contributing to Local Authority rates for services within the area. The new dwellings would be self-build and would be energy efficient. Cumulatively, these are benefits that attract substantial weight.

I have found that harm would arise from conflict with the spatial strategy in the development plan. However, owing to the Council’s acute deficit of 5-year housing land supply, the weight given to this conflict is significantly reduced.

Consequently, I conclude that the adverse impacts of the proposal, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, which is a material consideration that weighs heavily in favour of allowing the appeal.

The PPG makes clear that conditions cannot be attached to a grant of permission in principle. Where permission in principle is granted by application, the default duration of that permission is 3 years. Applications for technical details consent must be determined within the duration of the permission granted. Therefore, no conditions have been imposed.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan, but material considerations, including policies in the Framework, would justify determining other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.