Appeal 6003951

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle route has 2 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 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted.

An applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum net number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for up to 8 dwellings.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development having regard to its location, proposed land use and amount of development.

The appeal site is located within a built-up area and comprises an enclosed, privately owned section of vegetated railway embankment forming part of the former Trafford Park railway, disused for about 30 years. Residential properties of modest scale, including semi-detached and town houses, lie on either side of the appeal site, with larger commercial premises to the north and west. The proposal seeks to deliver between one and 8 dwellings on the land, which the appellant suggests could comprise 3-bedroom family dwellings. In light of its immediate context, residential development on this land may be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with relevant planning policies and material considerations concerning the land use and amount of development.

As the appeal site lies within an area which is predominantly residential in character and therefore, subject to other planning policies and considerations, it would in principle be suitable for residential development. The proposed land use would not therefore in itself be inappropriate. It would provide up to 8 dwellings which would contribute towards meeting the housing needs of the borough in a location which is accessible and is well served by local shops, services and amenities.

However, it lies within an area which is currently safeguarded for potential rail or active travel through Policies TP11 and TP11A of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) (the UDP), These policies also aim to enhance public transport access to Trafford Park, supporting access to significant employment growth. Rail‐based public transport serving the [name] is regarded as integral to reducing pressure on the highway network and facilitating the regeneration of surrounding land. This safeguarding approach ensures that alternative options for delivering such provision remain available in the future.

Although the policies which relate to the safeguarding are of some age and there are now some developments either in existence or with planning permission along its length. From what I saw on site and from the evidence before me none of the development either has or would introduce built form along the line of the former railway itself. As such, whilst these developments would influence the character and use of their immediate surroundings, I am not satisfied that they would, in themselves, preclude the future redevelopment of the former railway line.

Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2022- 2039 (March 2024) (the DPD) does not make specific reference to the Trafford Park Freight Railway, and to the emerging Trafford Local Plan which no longer safeguards the former railway line. However, the draft plan remains at the Regulation 18 stage, and the status of the former railway line is subject to active review. The former railway line retains the potential to support strategic objectives, including in association with the emerging [name] area or the provision of wider connections, including to the south side of [address]. In these circumstances, there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the final form of the emerging plan or whether this safeguarding would be removed. I therefore afford the emerging plan only limited weight.

The line of the railway is no longer in a single ownership which would make the use of it as a transport route more problematic. Nevertheless, I have not been provided with any substantive evidence that site assembly would not be possible and as the safeguarded route remains a policy in the adopted plan, I have afforded this significant weight.

A Greater Manchester Combined Authority (2025) report has been referenced, suggesting that the focus on the [name] project implies no intention to reinstate the former railway line. However, I have not been provided with a copy of this report, and in any event my decision must rest on the specific circumstances of this proposal and the adopted development plan.

No objections have been received from the Transport for [name], [name], [name], the owners/operators of the [name], the Greater Manchester Combined Authority or the Old Trafford Mayoral Development Corporation. However, these organisations did not form part of the consultation carried out by the Council as part of the planning application process. The weight afforded to the lack of any objection is therefore limited.

Given the above, I find that in these circumstances the proposal would conflict with the adopted development plan policy to safeguard the former railway line.

The proposal is made on the basis of a wide divergence of between 1 and 8 dwellings and the appellant asserts that site constraints in relation to issue including topography, tree cover, neighbouring development and landscaping and biodiversity net gain requirements mean that the precise number of dwellings should be established at the second stage. However, the PPG clearly states that the amount of development should be addressed at the first stage of permissions in principle consent route.

While the parties agree that the proposal would fall below the minimum density required by Policy JP-H4 of the DPD, the precise threshold, being either 70 or 120 dwellings per hectare (dph), is disputed, In any event, a scheme of up to 8 dwellings would only deliver a maximum of 24 dph, which is substantially below even the lower threshold. Although the appellant contends that this level of development reflects the prevailing local character and site constraints, little substantive evidence has been provided to support this position.

Given the size and configuration of the appeal site, and the potential for the dwellings to front onto [address], there appears to be scope to accommodate a greater number of dwellings and make a more efficient use of the land. On the evidence before me, I am not convinced and it has not been adequately demonstrated that a higher density could not be achieved.

For the above reasons, I find that the proposal would be unsuitable for residential development having regard to its location, proposed land use and amount of development. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policies TP11A and ENV28 of the UDP, L2 and L4 of the Trafford Local Plan: Core Strategy Development Plan Document (January 2012) (the [name]) and JP-P1 and JP-H4 of the DPD. Amongst other things, these seek to safeguard and improve the rail corridor, including those which are neglected, degraded or derelict, and increase the average density of new housing developments in the most accessible locations.

While the appellant suggests that improvements for cycling and walking could be extended at the front of the site, along [address], the effectiveness of this is disputed by the Council. In any event, the details of the layout of the site are not a matter for consideration at this stage and are not determinative in my decision.

The appeal site contains no designated heritage assets, lies outside of any conservation area and includes no protected trees or woodlands. It is within [name] 1, with no public rights of way, hazardous installations, pipelines or air quality management constraints. However, these factors do not weigh in favour of allowing the appeal.

Incidents of anti-social behaviour and fly-tipping on the appeal site would be eradicated as a result of the development, which would benefit local amenity. However, this does not diminish the harm I have identified on the main issue.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal site would not be suitable for the residential development proposed. The proposal would conflict with Policies T11A and ENV28 of the UDP, Policies L2 and L4 of the [name] and [name] P1 and JP-H4 of the DPD. Notwithstanding the current housing land supply position, and based on the evidence before me, I find these policies to be consistent with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Accordingly, I attribute substantial weight to the conflict with them.

The parties agree that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with a current figure of 4.7 years’ supply. The presumption in favour of sustainable development contained within paragraph 11d) of the Framework is therefore engaged. This requires 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, having particular regard to key policies.

The proposal would result in the re-use of brownfield land and would make a modest contribution to housing supply, to which I attribute significant weight, albeit tempered by the limited scale of the shortfall. There would also be associated modest economic benefits during the period of construction and once occupied along with advantages in respect of [name]. Although the site is in a sustainable location, the proposal would not make efficient use of the land in terms of the amount of development proposed, nor would it secure a well‐designed place. This concern is heightened by the potential for the scheme to prejudice future infrastructure that could provide alternatives to private car use. Moreover, at the proposed density, no affordable housing would be required. Accordingly, on the evidence before me, the benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the identified conflict.

Consequently, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Consequently, the appeal should be dismissed.