Appeal 6004510

The appeal is dismissed.

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 stage (‘technical details consent’) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages, and so my scope is limited to matters relevant to location, land use, and the amount of development proposed. The appeal proceeds on this basis.

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

The main issues are whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development with reference to:  whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies with particular regard to openness and the site’s location;  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and  whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is within the Green Belt. Policy GBR1 of the East Herts District Plan (2018) (the LP) states that planning applications within the Green Belt will be considered in line with the Framework.

Paragraph 154 g) of the Framework states development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Furthermore, paragraph 155 makes clear that the development of homes in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where: a. The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; c. The development would be in a sustainable location.

The main parties agree the proposal involves the redevelopment of previously developed land and I find no reason to disagree.

There are areas of hardstanding on the site. However, spatially, the proposed one to nine dwellings would inevitably have significant bulk and massing which the existing development does not. Visually, the development would be screened from adjacent roads due to its location and intervening buildings and vegetation. However, its built form, whether for one or up to nine dwellings, would be visible to an extent from the countryside to the east, within the wider context of surrounding built form and natural landscape features. This would particularly be the case in winter months when screening from vegetation is less effective. For these reasons, the proposed development would have moderate spatial and visual impacts which would harm the openness of the Green Belt.

The main parties agree that the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. I find no reason to disagree, hence criterion a. of paragraph 155 of the Framework is met. Furthermore, the Council accepts it cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply (5YHLS), thus I am satisfied in this case, there is a demonstrable unmet housing need and criterion b. is also met.

Criterion c. requires development to be within a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. These paragraphs relate, amongst other matters, to focusing development in locations which are or can be made sustainable and ensuring that sustainable transport modes are prioritised. There is an acknowledgment within paragraph 110 of the Framework that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and that this should be taken into account in decision making.

The site is within [site address] approximately 1km to the south of the larger village of [name].

An Inspector found in an appeal decision1 relating to a site nearby that occupants of the dwelling proposed would have reasonable access to local services and facilities, with a choice of transport modes comparable to that found in some other rural areas, making reference to the development resulting in a modest increase in car use.

The decision was made over two and a half years ago. There is no evidence before me that the same level of public transport referred to in the decision is still available in the area. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided as to the existing services and facilities available within [site address] or to demonstrate the current levels of movements to and from the site. Moreover, the scheme before me is very different to the previous appeal scheme as it is for one to nine new build dwellings. Consequently, I find the appeal scheme is not comparable to the current scheme.

Reference is made by the appellant to a permission in principle, within the blue line of the current appeal scheme, which was granted for the conversion of two existing barns to create one to three dwellinghouses2. In that case, the Council considered the car journeys resulting from the proposed residential use to be similar to that of the previously permitted holiday lets. Consequently, I find the application is not comparable to the appeal scheme.

Whilst cycling would be an option for occupants of the proposal before me, walking would be a less attractive option due to the lack of pavements, verges and streetlighting, such that pedestrians would have to walk in the carriageway. Accordingly, future occupiers would be unduly reliant on the private car to access day-to-day services and facilities. Consequently, in my view, criterion c. of paragraph 155 is not met in this case.

In conclusion, the proposed development does not constitute an exception to inappropriate development in paragraphs 154 g) or 155 of the Framework. It would therefore comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm the Green Belt in conflict with Policy GBR1 of the LP. It also conflicts with Policies DPS2, VILL3 and TRA1 of the LP, which collectively, amongst other things, seek to guide housing to more sustainable locations. However, the Council’s decision refers to Policy VILL2 of the LP and as the site is not within a ‘Group 2 Village’ the policy is not relevant to this appeal.

The surrounding area is characterised predominantly by detached dwellings set within spacious plots, exhibiting a varied mix of scale, layout and design.

Given the site’s size and configuration, and in the absence of substantive details to the contrary, I am not satisfied the appeal site could accommodate up to nine dwellings without those dwellings appearing much smaller than those around them or resulting in buildings squeezed into plots positioned close to their boundaries with limited space around them. This would mean the proposed up to nine dwellings would be likely to appear cramped and or incongruous when compared with the prevailing pattern of development and the size of buildings in the locality. 1 APP/J1915/W/23/3320814 2 3/25/1668/PIP

Thus, in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I find the proposal would harm the spacious character and appearance of the area. It therefore conflicts with Policy DES4 of the LP insofar as it seeks development proposals to reflect and promote local distinctiveness. The proposal would also conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework which seeks to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.

As a small site, the development could be brought forward relatively quickly contributing to the Council’s housing supply. It would also make use of previously developed land which is encouraged by the Framework. Economic benefits would result from the construction of the proposal, as well as from future occupiers supporting local services and facilities.

The proposed development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm its openness. Framework paragraph 153 requires that substantial weight is given to such harm.

The site is not in a suitable location for housing, and the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. These harms attract significant weight.

I have identified a number of benefits above which, together, attract moderate weight however they would not clearly outweigh the substantial weight which must be given to Green Belt harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

Given the shortfall in housing supply, I am taken to Framework paragraph 11d). In this case, I have found that the proposal would comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt, which would harm its openness. The application of policies in the Framework that protect the Green Belt, as set out in footnote 7 of paragraph 11, therefore provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

To conclude, the site is not appropriate for the proposed development having regard to its location, the proposed land use, and the amount of development. The proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole, as well as policies within the Framework. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the

Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.