Appeal 6004489

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the demolition of the existing house and the construction of a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4 bungalows at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01094/PIP.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Bromsgrove District Council. That application is the subject of a different decision.

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 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 (the site) is a roughly oblong parcel of land, though its width narrows to its southern end, and is described as being around 0.35 hectares in area. It is located to the west side of the B4551 [address], from which it takes its vehicular access via two separate gated access positions. A substantial two-storey dwelling occupies the northern section of the site, which is noted as having planning permission for enlargement to an area of 767 sq.m.

The site’s eastern boundary with the road has a dense belt of substantially evergreen trees running along much of its length, behind and above a high close boarded timber fence on the southern section of the site, and a high render and brick masonry wall for the remaining section of the boundary, with the exception of the two access points, where gate pillars and gates provide access from the highway to the site. This boundary wall and fence is set several metres back from the highway providing visibility for exiting vehicles, whilst the gates on the northern-most access position are set further back from the highway, to allow a vehicle to fully pull off the road whilst waiting for the gates to open.

The site’s southern boundary has a timber fence with an evergreen tree and shrub belt behind it, whilst the site’s northern boundary is defined by a fence which separates a former section of the site which received approval in 2018 for the erection of a large bungalow. The site’s western boundary consists of a mix of lower hedge and fences, allowing views into open farmland beyond.

The appeal site is located to the south of the village of Romsley, though is not within the built-up area of the village identified on the Bromsgrove District Plan 2011-2030 (adopted 2017) (the District Plan) [name]. The appeal site and the village are located within the West Midlands Green Belt. As the site is not within the defined village boundary, its land use is therefore that of an existing residential dwelling within the Green Belt, with development subject to the controls of national Green Belt policy along with Policies BDP1, BDP2 and BDP4 of the District Plan.

The Council have examined the effect of the proposal on the Green Belt. They determined that the appeal proposal did not meet the exceptions to inappropriate development contained in paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, they determined the site constituted Grey Belt land and met criteria a) to d) of paragraph 155 of the Framework. Therefore, it met this exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Having examined the evidence before me, I have reached the same conclusion. The proposal would therefore not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and should therefore not be regarded as being harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, in relation to its location and land use, I find the proposal would accord with National and development plan Green Belt policy.

Whilst the site is located outside the defined boundary of the village, it is located within a satellite area of development immediately to the south, around the junction of [address] with [address], where there are a significant number of residential properties. The site is bounded to the north and south by other such properties and contains a substantial sized existing residential dwelling. Its proposed land use would therefore be consistent with the established use and that of neighbouring properties and is therefore acceptable.

The site is located outside the defined [name] boundary for Romsley and would, therefore, not represent infilling which would have gained support from policy BDP2 of the District Plan. It therefore conflicts with policy BDP2 of the District Plan in this regard. However, the site is within existing residential use in an area with other such uses adjacent to it.

The site is within walking distance of the main section of the village via a continuous public footpath located opposite the site, on the eastern side of [address]. The village contains a primary school, a public house, a church, a village hall and several shops. The site would also have access to public transport, the Council confirming that a bus stop is located a short distance to the north of the site. Accordingly, the site would be in a sustainable location and would, therefore, be supported by policy BDP1 of the District Plan.

For the above reasons I find the proposal would conflict with Policy BDP2 of the District Plan but would accord with policy BDP1 of the District Plan. It would, therefore, be acceptable in terms of its location and land use.

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 final extent of development and its form would be for determination at the TDC stage, were the appeal allowed.

There is dispute between the parties in relation to the locational suitability of the site with regards to safe vehicular access to the site. Worcestershire County Council acting as the Highway Authority (WCCHA), raised objection to the proposal, recommending its refusal. Their concerns were related to the speed of vehicles within this section of road, the visibility from the existing access points and the width of the existing access points being insufficient to meet the intensified use that would result from the proposal. The Council has accepted the comments of the WCCHA, refusing the proposal by reason of its location and a lack of demonstration of safe access to the highway for future occupiers of the site, with consequent effects on highway safety.

The Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) makes it clear that the only matters for consideration at the PIP stage are the location, the land use and the amount of development. All other matters are for consideration at the TDC stage. Whilst the accessibility of a site can be considered in relation to its location, this should relate to a high-level assessment as to whether safe access to the site could be achieved at the TDC stage. It should not be assessing the technical suitability of existing means of access to the site, as the detailed proposed means of access, including geometry and level of visibility are neither proposed within, nor for consideration at, the PIP application stage.

The WCCHA have raised concerns over the speed of traffic within this section of the road. At my visit, it was evident that the southern-most point of the application site was around 100 metres north of the point where the speed limit on [address] transitions from the National speed limit to a 30mph speed limit. If the WCCHA have concerns regarding persistent breaches of the speed limit within this section of the road, then this is a separate matter that should be addressed directly by WCCHA, as the relevant highway authority, in conjunction with the Police to enforce the defined speed limit.

Notwithstanding the 30mph speed limit of this section of road, the evidence before me indicates that the increased visibility of 2.4m x 79m recommended by WCCHA, for the increased speed that they suggest vehicles are regularly travelling within this section of the road, can be met by both of the existing access points on the site. This was also clearly evident at my site visit. It would, therefore, be possible for a future access to be located at any point between the position of the two existing accesses, which would have a visibility much greater in either direction, than the increased distance recommended by the WCCHA. It is thus clearly demonstrated, at high level, that safe access from the site to the highway could be provided for occupiers of the proposed development, which would be fully detailed at the TDC stage.

For the above reasons, I therefore find the appeal proposal would accord with Policies BDP1 and BDP16 of the District Plan.

The Council have identified that they cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply as required by the Framework. The position has been identified as being at 2.24 years housing land supply, which is a significant deficit. 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.

Accordingly, paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework is engaged, which indicates that 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 two and four dwellings, which in the context of the Council’s significant housing land supply deficit, would make an important contribution towards overall housing supply. I therefore attach significant weight to this matter.

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 properties would also be CIL liable, providing further public benefit. The new dwellings would be bungalows, providing housing choice and would be energy efficient. Cumulatively, these are benefits that attract significant weight.

I have found that harm would arise from conflict with policy BDP2 of the spatial strategy in the development plan. However, owing to the Council’s significant deficit of 5-year housing land supply, the weight I attribute to this conflict is substantially 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.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan. However, material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.