Appeal 6004668

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. 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 (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 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issue in the appeal is whether or not the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site lies to the north of the A536 – a relatively recently constructed northern bypass of Congleton. In order to achieve sustainable development Policy SD1 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (adopted July 2017) (CELPS) prioritises growth in the [name] and [name] in the district. Congleton is designated as a [name] in Policy PG2 of the CELPS. In such settlements, the policy advises that development of a scale, location and nature that recognises and reinforces local distinctiveness will be supported. 1 [name]: 012 [name]:58-[phone]

However, the site lies outside the settlement boundary for Congleton, and so in line with Policy PG6 of the CELPS, is located in the open countryside. Within the open countryside Policy PG6 indicates that development is restricted to that which is essential for uses appropriate to a rural area or that forms one of a number of exceptions listed in the policy. None of these apply to the proposal. The location of the development and proposed land use would therefore be contrary to this policy.

Policy PG2 of the CELPS states that in “[name] and [name]” – the lowest level of the settlement hierarchy it defines – growth should be confined to that which is proportionate in scale with the function and character of the settlement and in locations well related to the existing built up extent of the settlement.

Immediately to the south of the appeal site are the landscape bunds associated with the bypass, but the other three sides are surrounded by agricultural land. As part of the strategic growth of the town set out in the CELPS considerable new housing development has taken place along the south of the bypass and on one site to the north of it. However, land to the north of the bypass in the vicinity of the site remains largely agricultural in nature and it retains a distinctly rural character. Development within this area is limited and is generally either located along the roads that bisect it or farmsteads that relate to the agricultural nature of the land.

Therefore, the bypass generally forms a distinct boundary between the built form of Congleton and the countryside that surrounds it. This can be seen clearly in the vicinity of the appeal site. To the south of the bypass the area is largely residential and has a suburban character that befits its location within the settlement boundary of a [name], whereas to the north of the bypass the character changes and housing along [site address] becomes more limited in number and sporadic in nature.

The proposed site is set along an access track that runs parallel to the bypass and would be separated from the nearest houses on [site address] by a field. As a result, the proposed housing would not relate well to the existing built form on [site address] . Nor would it relate to the existing built form south of the bypass, given the clear distinction this road creates to the nature of development and the character of the area. The location of the development would therefore also be contrary to Policy PG2.

Whilst the landscape bunds and the position of the site away from [site address] means views of the proposed housing would be limited, its location would nonetheless result in a clear incursion of the built form into the open countryside. Whilst the limited visibility may mean the impact of this on the appearance of the locality would be limited, it would nonetheless still be detrimental to the landscape’s character.

As a [name] has a good range of services and facilities. However, most of these are at a distance from the site that means people are unlikely to walk to them, especially as neither [site address] or [address] are lit and for the majority of its length the only footway on [address] is a narrow unmade path in the grass verge. [address] is however a designated cycle route and many of the services and facilities in the town are within cycling distance of the site.

The nearest public transport is the bus service along [address], with the stops being well beyond what is considered to be an acceptable walking distance. Furthermore, the service is limited, with only 10 buses during the day on a weekday (at best only hourly), 6 on a Saturday (every 2 hours approximately) and none in the evenings or on a Sunday.

Notwithstanding the potential for cycling, future residents would be largely reliant on private transport to address their day to day needs. However, the distances to services and facilities would be short. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) highlights that the opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. In the light of all these factors, I consider the site would be a relatively accessible location.

It is not disputed that, subject to appropriate design at the technical details stage, the site is capable of accommodating 3 houses and so the amount of development is acceptable.

Nevertheless, I consider that the location of the permission in principle and the proposed land use in this location would be contrary to Policies SD1, PG2 and PG6 of the CELPS outlined above. Additionally, the proposed permission in principle would result in a form of development whose location would have an unacceptable impact on landscape character. It would therefore also conflict with Policies SE4 and SD2 of the CELPS and Policy ENV3 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (adopted December 2022) which seek to ensure developments conserve and respect landscape character and respect qualities, features and characteristics that contribute to local distinctiveness.

It has been suggested that the development would be self-build dwellings. However, I have not been provided with any evidence as to the demand for self-build dwellings in the area or the supply of sites to meet any such demand. Consequently, I give this little weight.

The Council have indicated that although the [name] results show past delivery has been good, they currently only have a 3.8 year supply of housing land and have not disputed that paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is engaged. This means that planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The proposed permission in principle would be located outside any settlement boundary and would not be for a form of development that is acceptable in the open countryside. I give significant weight to the conflict this causes with the development plan policies outlined above. In addition, it would represent an incursion into the open countryside, that is not well related to the existing built form and does not respect the character of the landscape. I give limited weight to the conflict this causes with the relevant development plan policies set out above.

Both the construction phase and spend by future occupiers would benefit the local economy and help support the viability of local services and the proposal would contribute to the housing land supply. However, as the proposal is only for up to 3 dwellings, the contribution it would make to the housing land supply is minimal and the economic benefits would be limited, so I give both these economic and social benefits limited weight.

Overall, I consider that the harms I have identified would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole. Consequently, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of development as defined in the Framework and there are no material considerations that indicate permission in principle should be granted for development that is not in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.