Appeal 6004103

The appeal is dismissed.

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 consent route has two stages: the first (‘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.

During the appeal process, the appellant submitted late details of two recent planning appeals they considered to be relevant. The Council were given the opportunity to comment on the details submitted.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, in terms of its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with particular regard to: • national and local policies concerning the location and accessibility of development; and • the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site forms part of a field on the edge of Aston. It is a broadly rectangular piece of land, bordered by existing housing on [address] on one side, agricultural fields to two sides and [address] to the fourth. There is an existing access point to the site from [address], and whilst it is not indicated on the plans, it is likely that this point would be utilised for any development scheme.

The site is in the open countryside, as defined in Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (adopted July 2017) (CELPS) Plan Policy PG6. CELPS policies limit the provision of new housing on sites such as this. There is no defined settlement boundary, but there is an infill boundary, where limited residential development is permitted. The site is outside of this boundary. Policy PG6 of the CELPS and Policy HOU1 of the Newhall Neighbourhood Plan (NP) allows for some residential development, however, this scheme does not meet these exceptions.

There are limited facilities and services of a public house and open spaces available in Aston. To access these, future residents would need to travel via [address] by foot or bicycle. The lane is somewhat narrow and is bound on both sides by tall hedgerows on the section from the appeal site to the village edge. There is no dedicated pavement or substantial verge here, and the route is only partly lit. This route would be particularly undesirable in winter months, after dusk or during poor weather conditions.

Further afield is Wrenbury, which provides a wider range of facilities and services, including a train station, primary school, village shop, doctor’s surgery and a church. I also acknowledge that a bus stop exists within Aston, providing access to Wrenbury. However, the Council contends that this does not operate after 6pm or on Sundays and provides only a limited service Monday to Saturday. I have not been provided with any evidence indicating otherwise. Access to Wrenbury and the Aston bus stops would be along the same unsatisfactory route, as described above.

Whilst opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will be more limited in rural areas; there would likely be a reliance on private cars to access wider day-to-day facilities and services in this location. This would involve a short distance by car for some facilities in Wrenbury, however, regular travel to larger settlements further afield is likely for others. This is contrary to the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

CELPS Policy SD2 requires residential development to provide access to a range of public transport, open space and key services and amenities. A range is considered as a bus stop, multi-functional open space, a convenience store and at least four other services or amenities. Based on the Council’s assessment, the site is within the distance for a bus stop, open space and a public house only. The appellant contends that the scoring matrix is not part of the policy itself, however, it does form part of the development plan. In addition, the appellant has not provided me with an alternative assessment. On this basis, the site is not in an accessible location.

My finding is different to a previous appeal decision (ref: APP/R0660/W/14/3001328) and previous planning applications for sites in Aston, including [name] of [address]. There has, however, been a change in circumstances since those decisions were made. Most importantly, the CELPS was adopted after the decision dates for these sites. CELPS Policy SD2, in particular, provides a new policy basis, which was not previously in place.

In addition, paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework has also been amended and now requires decision-taking to have particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes. From that perspective, this appeal site and the other developments referred to are not directly comparable.

For the reasons highlighted above, the proposal would not be suitable for residential development, with particular regard to national and local policies concerning the location and accessibility of development. It would conflict with CELPS policies PG6, SD1 and SD2 and NP Policy HOU1. Collectively, these policies seek to direct new housing development towards appropriate and accessible locations and ensure development is accessible by public transport, walking and cycling.

Development in Aston is mostly focused along parts of [address] and [address], with some along [address]. [address], which adjoins the proposal site on one side, currently provides a clear visual and physical edge to the settlement. It is accessed from [address], but the dwellings forming this development have no frontage onto it.

The appeal site is visible through gaps in the hedgerow that bounds [address] between the appeal site and [address]. Glimpses of the wider countryside are also visible. Consequently, the site, and this part of [address], forms part of the open, rural character and countryside setting of Aston.

The appeal site is open grass land and is not clearly defined to the southern boundary. The hedgerows and trees could, to an extent, screen any development if they are to be retained. However, it would be likely that any dwellings would be glimpsed through gaps, including at any access point and during winter months. Moreover, existing landscaping cannot be relied upon to always provide the same level of screening. As a result, the proposal would have a harmful urbanising effect on this undeveloped site, the character of the area and rural countryside setting of Aston.

Although details provided at the permission in principle stage do not include a layout, the size of the appeal site and evidence submitted by the appellant suggests that any residential development would be low density. Whilst this would allow for green and blue infrastructure and a landscape plan, this low density would be at odds with the higher density of [address] and other residential development near to the appeal site. I accept that this is a detailed design matter to some extent, nevertheless, the scope of a permission in principle includes the amount of development on the site and so this matter is relevant to this appeal.

For the reasons highlighted above, the proposal would not be suitable for residential development, with particular regard to the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with CELPS policies PG6, SD1, SD2 and SE1; and Cheshire East Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (adopted December 2022) Policy GEN1. Amongst other things, these policies require development to contribute positively towards an area’s character and identity and have regard to the design and landscape character to preserve and enhance the appearance and distinctiveness of the countryside.

Even were I to find this aspect of the appeal scheme acceptable, it would not overcome the harm identified in respect of the accessibility of the site.

The appellant has drawn my attention to several appeal decisions. Three of these appeals were at rural locations, where the settlements had limited facilities and services. Inspectors concluded that travel further afield would be required. Wrenbury is designated as a Local Service Centre in CELPS Policy SD2, whereas for these appeals, larger settlements were located nearby. For one, this would be to Macclesfield, a designated Principal Town (ref: APP/R0660/W/24/3354674). The Inspector also made reference to the settlement being linked by a designated cycle route nearby. Future residents would therefore have alternatives to the private car.

For the site in Pickmere (ref: APP/R0660/W/25/3376104), the Inspector noted that Knutsford (a designated [name]), Northwich and [name] are a short distance away. The appeal site at Butley Town (ref: 6002211) is close to Tytherington, Prestbury and Bollington. Specific details of the distances are not referred to and so I cannot be certain these are comparable to this appeal site.

The appellant has also referenced an appeal for up to 90 dwellings at Derby. The Inspector concluded that the out-of-date policies of the plan were outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. Those benefits included up to 90 dwellings with provision for 30% affordable homes on site. On that basis, this appeal is materially different. The planning balance required by paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework and the appropriate weight to give to development plan policies, which restrict residential development, will follow below.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to Counsel opinion that they have sought regarding the determination of this appeal. The planning balance below is in-line with this advice, where the development plan is the starting point for decisions, before considering any material considerations.

I have found harm in respect of the location of the site in relation to its accessibility and character and appearance. I give these matters significant weight. As such, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

However, the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply, with supply currently standing at 3.8 years. The appellant further contends that draft figures for March 2025 indicate a 3.3 year supply. Irrespective of the precise figure, there is a significant shortfall and paragraph 11(d) of the Framework applies. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole, having particular regard to directing development to sustainable locations.

The proposed development would make a positive contribution towards housing supply in an area where there is an undisputed shortfall. There would also be associated economic benefits during construction and arising from the additional occupants, in line with Government strategy. There would also be some social benefits arising from interactions of future residents. The provision of 10% biodiversity net gain, cycle storage areas and electric vehicle charging points would be environmental benefits. I give significant weight to these cumulative benefits, albeit the relatively modest scale and nature of the development means that they would be limited in extent.

Overall, I find that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. There are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which would justify determining the proposal other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.