Appeal 6004102

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 (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. 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.

Plans have been submitted which indicate the size, form and positioning of the proposed dwelling, however given the limitations imposed by the type of application, I have taken these plans into account on an indicative basis only.

As set out by the development description, the proposed development seeks to provide a unit of self-build and/or custom housebuilding. A signed [name] (UU) has been submitted with the appeal, containing an obligation which would restrict occupation of the proposed dwelling to the appellant and their family for a period of three years. The UU indicates the planning obligation would come into effect on grant of planning permission. Therefore, it would not come into effect until technical details consent is granted and is therefore of limited relevance at the permission in principle stage. Moreover, the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) sets out that neither conditions nor planning obligations can be attached to any permission in principle application.

Nonetheless, both main parties have made representations in respect of the provision of self-build and custom housebuilding (SBCH) in the area, and the council assessed the proposal on the assumption it would constitute a SBCH unit. Therefore, I have determined the appeal on the same basis.

Since the planning application was determined, the council has advised that it can no longer evidence a five-year supply of housing land. I have considered this matter in the determination of this appeal.

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.

The appeal site comprises an access track and a small part of a paddock. The wider paddock includes grazing land, stables and outbuildings and a new agricultural storage building is under construction. Therefore, the site and immediate surroundings are characterised by equestrian uses.

The locality features a small cluster of mixed residential and other uses at a crossing point to the [name]. This part of [address], between the rail line and the canal, is historically significant due to industry involving coal, bricks and iron. The appeal site lies outside but adjacent to the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area, which includes a former coal yard, key buildings and a canal wharf area. Beyond the immediate vicinity of the site is farmland and open countryside. The cluster does not benefit from a settlement boundary and is 285m from the boundary of the village of [site address] . Therefore, the appeal site is located within the countryside for planning policy purposes.

Policies S1, S2 and R1 of the [name] Local Plan (Part 1) (2014) (the Local Plan Part 1), and Policy SS1 of the [name] 2 Local Plan 2011-2029 (the Local Plan Part 2) set out the development strategy based upon a hierarchy of settlement categories. Policy H1 of the Heyford Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2029 (the Neighbourhood Plan) consolidates this approach and strictly controls new development outside of settlement confines unless it is a defined exception as per the Local Plan Part 1 or 2 policies or the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (NPPF).

Policy S1 suggests new development in rural areas will be generally limited, to enhance and maintain the distinctive character and vitality of rural communities, shorten journeys and facilitate access to jobs and services, strengthen rural enterprise, and respect tranquillity. Outside of existing settlement confines, Policy R1 permits development only where it involves the re-use of existing buildings or, in exceptional circumstances, where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of a rural community or contribute to the local economy.

The closest settlement, [site address] is identified as a Secondary (A) Village which provides a limited range of daily services and facilities with a wider range of provision further afield. The site opens onto an unmarked, narrow rural road with limited footpath provision and streetlighting until the built edge of [site address] , some 285m away. On-road walking and cycling would necessitate sharing the carriageway with vehicles and access via public transport services would be limited. It is expected therefore that occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be highly reliant on both the need to travel and for such travel to be car-based, to access facilities and services dispersed in neighbouring places. Therefore, the proposal offers poor accessibility which would be counter to the requirement to shorten journeys and facilitate access to jobs and services.

However, Policies SS1 and LH1 of the Local Plan Part 2 set out circumstances in which residential development outside of the settlement boundaries may be considered acceptable. This includes, at Policy LH1(e) provision of a self or custom build project where it complies with Local Plan Part 2 Policy LH5.

Policy LH5 requires that such sites immediately adjoin an identified settlement. The council’s Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2021) explains that ‘immediately adjoining’ the settlement confines, means the site must have a clear, physical and relatable connection with the settlement confines boundary, thereby appearing as a natural, contextually appropriate extension to it.

A recent appeal decision relating to a single dwelling at the appeal site established that the site was not immediately adjacent to the confines of [site address] , being separated by fields and the [name] corridor. This conclusion is not disputed by either party.

Whilst the site is not isolated in planning terms, its open and undeveloped nature contributes positively to the rural character of the surrounding area, enabling views across the site from the canal that enhance the landscape setting of the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area. Development at this location would not provide a physical connection to a settlement and would therefore undermine the distinctive character of the locality and disperse the vitality of nearby rural villages.

As such, there are no development plan policies which positively favour development of this type within the proposed location. Therefore, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, the site is not suitable for residential development.

The proposal would therefore conflict with Local Plan Part 1 Policies S1, SA and R1, and Local Plan Part 2 Policies SS1, SS2, LH1 and LH5. Taken together, these policies focus on securing sustainable development by way of a spatial strategy of settlement boundaries and specific criteria for residential development within the countryside as well as ensuring the conservation of heritage assets.

The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 as amended (SBCH Act) requires the council establish and publicise a register of those who are seeking to acquire serviced plots of land in the authority's area for their own self-build and custom housebuilding (SBCH). Unless exempt, section 2A of the SBCH Act includes a duty requiring the council give suitable development permission in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for SBCH in the authority's area arising in each base period. The council acknowledge that there is an unmet need for self and custom-built housing plots and therefore has failed to comply with the duties of the SBCH Act. The appeal proposal would comprise one dwelling and its contribution to meeting the shortfall in supply of SBCH would be small, however the provision of a SBCH dwelling carries moderate weight in the scheme’s favour.

In addition, the proposed dwelling would provide towards the overall local housing supply and therefore would contribute positively to the government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes as set out at paragraph 61 of the NPPF. The NPPF notes the positive contribution that small sites can make, however one dwelling would make a minor contribution which is afforded moderate weight in the balance.

Further to this, there would be short term economic benefits during the construction period and ongoing social and economic benefits upon occupation, arising from the use of local services and facilities. The scale of such benefits associated with one dwelling would be limited.

Whilst the extent of shortfall has not been confirmed, the council acknowledge it is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

In this circumstance, paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF is engaged, whereby planning permission should be granted unless (i) policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the development, and (ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal would not conflict with the NPPF’s policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance. Therefore, NPPF paragraph 11(d)(i) does not provide a strong reason for refusing the development.

Paragraph 110 of the NPPF recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions vary between urban and rural areas. However, even taking this difference into account, the proposed dwelling would not be located so as to prioritise sustainable transport modes and would not achieve safe and suitable access for all users, as required by NPPF paragraph 115.

In addition, paragraph 135 of the NPPF requires development be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. As set out above, the proposed development would not immediately adjoin a settlement boundary and would not form a natural, contextually appropriate extension to it.

The proposal would therefore conflict with the NPPF’s key policies for directing development to sustainable locations and securing well-designed places. Consequently, I afford substantial weight to the conflict with Local Plan Part 1 Policies S1, SA and R1, and Local Plan Part 2 Policies SS1, SS2, LH1 and LH5.

As described above, even taking account the NPPF’s overall aim to meet an area’s identified housing need with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community, the council’s housing land supply position, and shortfall in the provision of SBCH, the benefits associated with the provision of a single self-build dwelling would be moderate. I have also had regard to the other limited social and economic benefits identified above.

Consequently, the adverse impacts of the site’s location, the proposed land use and the amount of development on the housing strategy would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the NPPF, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. As such, the appeal should be dismissed.