Appeal 6004664

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second 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. A number of plans accompany the planning application showing a cluster of dwellings with direct access to [site address] . I have taken these into account only in so far as establishing whether the proposal is acceptable in principle.

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 site comprises a broadly square parcel of agricultural land, with a small spur extending northwards. It is situated on the western side of [site address] , Worleston, and is bound by hedgerows and mature trees. The majority of residential properties are located to the south with sporadic dwellings to the northeast and northwest and open countryside extending to the east. The surrounding area forms part of the compact linear cluster of dwellings at Worleston, characterised by intermittent groups of houses interspersed with open fields.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The appeal site is located outside of any defined settlement boundary and lies within open countryside under Policy PG6 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010 – 2030, 2017 (CELPS). This policy states that only development that is essential for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation, public infrastructure, essential works undertaken by a public service authorities or statutory undertakers, or for other purposes appropriate to a rural area will be permitted within the open countryside.

Exceptions may be made to the above criteria, where there is the opportunity for limited infilling in villages; the infill of a small gap with one or two dwellings in an otherwise built-up frontage elsewhere, affordable housing in accordance with the criteria contained in Policy SC6 ‘Rural exceptions Housing for Local needs’ or where the dwelling is exceptional in design and sustainable development terms.

The proposal does not fall within any of these categories and would therefore represent an unjustified form of new residential development in the countryside, conflicting with the overarching spatial strategy of the Local Plan that seeks to direct growth to defined settlements and protects the intrinsic character of the countryside.

Worleston has no defined settlement boundary and is therefore washed over by [name]. Policy PG2 of the CELPS identifies this as part of the ‘[name] and [name] tier within the settlement hierarchy, where growth should be confined to locations well related to existing built-up areas and proportionate to the settlement’s function.

While the site adjoins existing development, it does not fall within an infill village boundary under Policy PG10 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document, 2022 (SADPD), nor does it represent limited infilling as defined in the SADPD glossary which is generally the development of a relatively small gap between existing buildings. The appeal site extends into open land and fails to form a “small gap in a built-up frontage”. It is not a conventional infill opportunity within an established village envelope. The proposal therefore conflicts with the spatial distribution policies of the plan.

Further to this, the appeal site forms an important role in maintaining the rural approach to Worleston and adds to and reinforces the rural character of the village and its surroundings. [name] appreciate that certain matters such as design, layout and landscaping etc would be subject to technical details stage, the introduction of up to five dwellings on this parcel of land would nevertheless close down part of that open edge and materially increase the sense of built consolidation along this stretch of road. It would urbanise the countryside and lead to the loss of the distinctive vegetative character along [site address] . This would be at odds with the areas rural character and setting of the village which means that this location would not be suitable for the proposed development. Such a conclusion is not dependent on the detailed assessment at a later stage given that permission in principle still requires an assessment of the location, land use and amount of development. Given the characteristics of the site, I cannot agree that the site can be regarded as being within the village. It is an open edge of settlement parcel which performs an important transitional role between the village and the open countryside beyond.

In coming to such findings, I have had due regard to the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and indicative landscaping scheme, but I am not persuaded that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area or that the harm would be limited. I am also not convinced that such could be adequately overcome at a later stage via landscaping etc.

The appellant refers to a small-scale development which was allowed within Worleston1. However, it would appear that this scheme related to infilling in a different location/context and was prior to the adoption of the current Local Plan. Even if Policy PG2 of the CELPS had weight at that time as an emerging policy, the development was still assessed as infill in a different location/context. Such a scheme is not therefore directly comparable to the scheme I am considering.

Policy SD1 of the CELPS relates to sustainable development in [name] and states that wherever possible, development should be accessible by public transport, walking and cycling and that development should prioritise the most accessible and sustainable locations. Policy SD2 relates to sustainable development principles and the justification to this policy then provides suggested distances to services and amenities at Table 9.1.

There are a number of residential properties surrounding the appeal site and the proposed development would not technically be isolated in terms of paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless certain circumstances apply. Worleston is however a small rural village with very few services and facilities, limited to a shop, [address], primary school, play area, post box and village hall. It has a restricted range of day-to-day services such as healthcare, retail and employment opportunities. I also understand that there is no longer a regular bus service which reduces accessibility by public transport. The appellant refers to a flexi-link service. This however is a limited demand-responsive service for those who live beyond the reach of other public transport, those over 80, or those living with disabilities. Such a service cannot reasonably be regarded as equivalent to a regular and generally available public transport service of the kind ordinarily associated with a sustainably located housing site. Overall, the site does not compare favourably against the accessibility expectations reflected in Table 9.1 of Policy SD2 of the CELPS particularly having regard to the limited range of local services and the absence of regular public transport provision.

Based on the evidence before me and my own observations on site, it is likely that future residents would be highly reliant on the services and facilities further afield for day-to-day services such as those in Nantwich and Crewe and would be likely to access these mainly by car. This is due to the degree of separation distance combined with limited opportunities for alternative travel including lack of continuous footway for pedestrians and lighting etc. This route would not be an attractive or safe route for those commuting via walking or cycling particularly after dark or during unpleasant weather conditions. Given the appeal site’s relationship to services and facilities, it would likely result in a high dependency on private car. 1 16/2141N

Worleston may have been considered to be locationally sustainable during the determination of previous applications/appeals. However, I understand that this was at a time when there was access to a bus stop which no longer operates and thus has materially reduced sustainability.

I note the appeal in Macclesfield2 which allowed two dwellings in an area where there were limited services and facilities. However, that site was within the settlement, and the scale of development was considered as well as the proximity to larger settlements where there was a designated cycle route. Country parks and schools were also in reasonably close proximity as well as a public right of way. I do not find that scheme to be directly comparable to the one before me.

I am aware of a scheme approved in 20123 which was indeed some time ago located further south on the opposite side of the road. That scheme was however within the settlement boundary and thus subject to different policies which would have been applicable at that time. I also note from the Council’s evidence that such schemes were indeed decided at a time when a bus route was in operation which increases the matter of sustainability. Its location/context was also different to the appeal before me, and I do not find that scheme to be directly comparable.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development is not a sustainable location for the proposed development. Its countryside position, limited accessibility to services, absence of regular public transport provision, and the likely reliance of future occupiers on the private car all weigh against the proposal. When these factors are taken together with the site’s role as an open transitional parcel at the edge of the settlement, the proposal would represent an unsustainable pattern of development contrary to the spatial strategy and sustainable development objectives of the Local Plan. It would therefore be contrary to Policies PG2, PG6, SD1, SD2, SE4 of the CELPS and Policy ENV3 of the SADPD. Such policies together, amongst other matters, relate to sustainable development principles and landscape. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also be contrary to the guidance set out in the Framework which amongst others, relate to achieving well-designed places, conserving and enhancing the natural environment and promoting sustainable transport.

While some of the above-mentioned policies refer to matters which require further assessment, I still find the contents to be applicable in the assessment of the location, land use and amount of development particularly when considering characteristics that contribute to the distinctiveness of the local area.

The Council accept that at present they cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Consequently, because of the provisions of footnote 8, paragraph 11d) of the Framework should be applied. This states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: i. the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a 2 APP/R0660/W/24/3354674 3 11/2241N 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. Policy MP1 of the CELPS relates to the presumption in favour of sustainable development setting out a similar test and I note the submitted [name] relating to this.

The Framework advises that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. It also advises that decisions should ensure developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.

The Framework in paragraph 110, states amongst other things that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of objectives set out in paragraph 109, including identifying and pursuing opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use. Paragraph 110 explains that significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. It goes onto state that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making. Paragraph 115 of the Framework, explains that in assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that amongst others, sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location.

Whilst the Framework refers to significant development and acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, it nevertheless sets out that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling. It is clear that both local and national policy take a responsible approach to spatial distribution. The management of new development to more rather than less sustainable locations is an important development plan purpose which is reflected in both local and national policy. I do not dispute that the proposed development would help maintain and enhance the facilities and services on offer and those located further afield. I am also aware of the guidance in the Framework relating to maintaining the vitality of rural communities, but this does not justify development in this location nor overcome the proposals conflict with the spatial strategy and sustainability / accessibility issues.

Although the local plan policies are considered to be out of date given the provisions of footnote 8 of paragraph 11d), they are still considered to carry weight in decision making as the policies which are most important in the CELPS and SADPD seek to achieve sustainable development and prioritises the most accessible and sustainable locations. This is consistent with the Framework in protecting the countryside and ensuring development occurs in sustainable locations.

Set against the harm identified, there would be some social, economic and environmental benefits associated with the proposals, and I am aware of the appellant’s arguments in this regard including matters relating to biodiversity etc. Even taking this into account as well as the objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing, and the Council’s housing land supply position, the contribution of five properties would make a small difference to the overall supply of housing, and the overall benefits would indeed be relatively modest. Collectively, such benefits would not attract anything more than a moderate level of weight.

The adverse impacts identified above namely conflict with the adopted spatial strategy, unjustified development in the open countryside, erosion of rural edge character, and the creation of an unsustainable pattern of development likely to be heavily reliant on the private car would however carry significant weight. Such would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not therefore apply and the scheme would be contrary with paragraphs 11 and 115 of the Framework relating to achieving sustainable development and promoting sustainable transport.

I note the Inspector’s decision for an appeal in [name] Andrew4 where the need for housing was a factor of considerable weight in the decision but ultimately the Inspector concluded that the benefits would be moderate overall due to the small-scale nature of the development. The weight given to a benefit is a planning judgement based on policy priorities, and I have determined this appeal based on its own merits.

My attention has also been drawn to an appeal5 in Derby relating to the tilted balance and I am also aware of case law submitted in this respect as well as the need to address the housing crisis. However, that scheme related to 90 dwellings in an urban-edge location where the balancing exercise was undertaken against the specific function of a Green Wedge designation. It benefitted from established infrastructure, frequent public transport and a range of local services. Substantial weight was given to housing delivery, but this was in a sustainable context where every day needs could be met locally. The scheme before me relates to an open countryside location with no bus service, limited facilities and no strategic or affordable housing contribution. Such sustainability and scale factors that justified approval in the Derby case are therefore absent from the appeal I am considering. I do not therefore find that scheme to be directly comparable to the one before me and it is not a comparable precedent on the outcome of the planning balance in this case.

Changes have been made from earlier schemes, and the [name] may not have objected in the past, but this would not overcome the harm I have identified above. A lack of objection does also not mean that the scheme would not be harmful. The matters not in dispute would not weigh in favour of the scheme but would rather be a neutral factor in my overall decision.

Worleston may have had limited growth over the years, but this would not justify harmful development.

I have found that the site would not be in a suitable location for the proposed development and would represent an unsustainable pattern of development likely to be heavily reliant on the private car to which I attribute significant weight. 4 APP/R0660/W/25/3366708 5 APP/C1055/W/24/3356476

Paragraph 11 (d) ii. of the Framework states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, 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 for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

I have considered the stated benefits including provision of housing and housing land supply, but such benefits do not attract anything more than moderate weight particularly given the small-scale nature of the proposals. The adverse impacts in respect of the main issue would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. The appeal is therefore dismissed.