Appeal 6003908

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the proposed erection of up to [address], Knockdown, Tetbury [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/05111.

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 PIP 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. There is no dispute between the main parties with regard to the amount of development, and I have no firm reason to take a different view. I shall therefore focus on the matters of land use and location in my determination of the appeal.

A site layout plan has been submitted as part of the proposal. This is an indicative plan only and shows just one way that the scheme could be developed. I have therefore attributed limited weight to this plan in my consideration of the appeal.

The main issues are: • whether or not the site is suitable for residential land use, having regard to its location and its accordance with the spatial strategy of the development plan; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is located in the small settlement of Knockdown on the [name] boundary. The village of Didmarton, Gloucestershire is approximately 2km to the west, and approximately 2.7km to the south-east is the ‘Large Village’ of Sherston, Wiltshire, with the market town of Tetbury, Gloucestershire approximately 7km away.

Core Policy (CP) 1 of the [name] (WCS) sets out Wiltshire’s hierarchical housing strategy whereby development is directed to principal settlements, then market towns, then local service centres, then large villages, which include Sherston, and small villages. The premise being that the largest settlements in the hierarchy offer the best access to employment and services, and by focusing development here, it helps to safeguard them and support their self-containment, thus helping to reduce the need to travel.

Policy CP13 of the WCS relates to development in the Malmsbury Community Area (MCA), within which the appeal site sits. This identifies 885 new homes to be provided in Malmesbury and 510 homes to be provided in the rest of the MCA, including Sherston. The appeal site is not identified as a location for housing development.

Policy CP2 of the WCS sets out the Council’s housing delivery strategy and states that, unless permitted by other policies within the WCS as set out at paragraph 4.25, development will not be permitted outside the limits of development. The site is classified as a location outside defined limits of development under Policy CP2 and it has not been suggested that any of the paragraph 4.25 exceptions apply in this case. Likewise, none of the exceptions to new residential development provided by Saved Policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan 2011 apply. Therefore, for the purpose of planning and this appeal, the appeal site is in the countryside.

Policies CP60 and CP61 of the WCS identify that new development should be located and designed to reduce the need to travel by private car and encourage the use of sustainable transport alternatives.

Knockdown has a limited range of services and facilities, comprising various employment opportunities at Warren Business Park which would be within walking distance of the site and The Holford Arms public house, approximately 175m to the north-east of the site. Whilst the pub was closed at the time of my visit, as it looked to be undergoing a refurbishment, for the purpose of the appeal I have assumed it would reopen.

The evidence before me indicates that there are bus stops at The Holford Arms which provide a moderate frequency of services from early morning to early evening between Tetbury, Stroud and [name] on weekdays and a service on Saturdays. Although the Council have concerns that there is no footway or streetlights alongside the A433, I saw there were ample verges to step onto if required, therefore they could be navigated safely by foot or bicycle, although some occupants of the properties would find the absence of a footway a deterrent.

There is a BP petrol station with an associated convenience store approximately 0.5km west on the A433, which would be a short cycle journey. However, being further afield than the pub, I find that the lack of lighting and a dedicated footway would be a significant deterrent to any future occupants of the dwellings who might want to make the journey on foot.

Accordingly, I find the proposal to be in a settlement, albeit outside of any defined settlement boundary, which would allow future occupiers access to a public house and commercial uses on the business park within walking distance, along with bus services to other settlements. However, to meet their day-to day needs, future occupants would likely be generally dependent on use of a private car to access services and facilities in larger villages and settlements such as Sherston and Tetbury. The proposal would therefore conflict with the housing strategy of the development plan, specifically [name] CP1, CP2, CP13, CP60 and CP61 and would not be suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, and the proposed land use.

The appeal site mostly comprises a hard surfaced area within the business park which I saw has a mixed-use character, with commercial units sited alongside buildings in residential use. To the south of the business park is a field of solar panels (solar array).

The proposed development would be positioned between the solar array and a warehouse building and a cluster of adjacent residential buildings (Units 10, 1a, 8 and [address]). At the time of my visit the warehouse’s occupants included [name] and Highgrove.

The indicative plans show the 4 proposed dwellings as 2 pairs of semi-detached dwellings, sited approximately 20m away from the commercial building, with rear gardens extending to the southern site boundary with the solar array. Whilst the detailed design proposals are not being considered at this stage, given the size of the site and low density of the development indicated, there is ample space to reposition the buildings so that they have a better alignment with the business park’s existing circulation routes and provide a larger standoff with the existing commercial development. Also, landscaping could be incorporated to secure effective integration of the development into the area. As such and in the context of the established mixed uses, I disagree with the Council’s assertion that the development would result in an incongruous arrangement, rather it would complement the housing that is already in situ.

Consequently, having regard to its location and land use, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore, in principle, be a suitable location for residential development and would comply with Policy CP57 of the WCS. This policy, amongst other things, seeks development which meets a high standard of design which relates positively to its setting.

Set against the harm identified, the proposal would deliver an additional 4 housing units toward the area’s housing supply.

In economic terms, the appeal scheme would provide construction jobs and some local investment during its build out, as well as longer term expenditure of future occupiers in the local economy.

There is a planning permission1 on the site for a larger commercial development granted in June 2013 which the appellant suggests has been implemented as the foundations have been laid (the fallback). [name] have been provided with limited details, I have not been provided with any evidence to the contrary from the Council. Consequently, I find that there is a reasonable prospect of the commercial building being built if the appeal is dismissed. Therefore, I give the fallback moderate weight. Based on the lower number of parking spaces (8 for the appeal proposal as opposed to 18 for the commercial building), the loss of the commercial site to a lower traffic generating use would provide some environmental benefits associated with less vehicle emissions. Although a matter for the TDC stage, landscaping would provide biodiversity enhancements.

The Council have compared the proposal to a number of appeal sites, some of which were dismissed for reasons which included insufficient sustainable travel options or a lack of services. However, they all have a different site context to the appeal proposal, and none are located in an established business park which includes a mix of commercial and residnetial development. Accordingly, their circumstances are not directly comparable with those which apply in this appeal. I have, in any case, reached my own conclusions on the appeal proposal on the basis of the evidence before me.

As the site is located within the Cotswolds National Landscape, (formerly the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) I am mindful of my duties to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. I have also considered the fallback position. However regardless of the fallback, as the development would be located within the defined boundaries of the business park, between the solar array and existing buildings, I find that there would be no harm to the wider National Landscape.

It is common ground between the main parties that the proposed development would not affect the setting or significance of [address], a [name] listed building. Due to the lack of intervisibility between the listed building and the appeal site due to the presence of existing buildings I see no reason to disagree.

The Council sets out it has a housing land supply position of 2.42 years. Therefore, there is a significant shortfall against the requirement to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land, as set out at paragraph 78 of the Framework.

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

Despite the presence of moderate bus services, the proposed development would not be optimally located to reduce the need to travel and encourage the adoption of sustainable transport options. However, paragraph 110 of the Framework acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will 1 Application Reference N/13/00828/FUL vary between urban and rural areas, therefore I attach considerable harm to the proposal’s conflict with Policies CP1, CP2, CP13, CP60 and CP61 of the WCS.

In terms of benefits, paragraph 73 of the Framework recognises that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and paragraph 125 of the Framework also gives substantial weight to the value of using previously-developed land for new homes.

I have considered the Council’s argument that the weight to attribute to the site’s previously-developed status is reduced because it has not been occupied by any ‘permanent structure’ or ‘fixed surface infrastructure’. However, as the Framework’s definition of previously developed land does not make this distinction, its only caveat being that it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed, and as the appeal development would not result in the loss of the business park’s entire curtilage, I disagree with the Council.

Given the magnitude of the shortfall in the area’s housing supply and the positive utilisation of a brownfield site, I assign substantial weight to the proposal. I also afford modest favourable weight to the scheme’s economic and environmental benefits.

Consequently, whilst I have found that the adverse impacts of the proposal associated with its location outside the development boundary and conflict with policies of the WCS to be considerable, they would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the substantial benefits of the scheme when assessed against the policies in 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 advises that there is a default time limit duration of 3 years for a permission in principle and that, it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.