Appeal 6004788

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for the erection of between 4 and 9 new dwellings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref CB/25/03474/PIP.

Permission in principle is part of a 2-stage planning consent process which provides an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. It separates the consideration of matters of principle for proposed development on a site (stage 1) from the technical detail of that development (stage 2). A full planning permission is only secured when both stages 1 and 2 have been passed.

This appeal relates to an application for permission in principle (‘PiP’). Having regard to the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) the scope of considerations at this stage is limited to location, land use and amount of development.

A signed [name] has been submitted during the course of the appeal, dated 23 April 2026 (the UU). This relates to mitigation for effects on the Chilterns Beechwood Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and it has been taken into account in determining the appeal.

Article 5B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended), provides that permission in principle cannot be given for habitats development, which includes development which is likely to have a significant effect on a qualifying European site. The PPG states that if the authority is satisfied, after taking account of mitigation measures in the appropriate assessment and concluding that the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the protected site, then PiP can be granted. For the reasons set out below, as the competent authority I am satisfied that this would be the case here. It is therefore appropriate that the proposal continues under the PiP route.

The Council have stated that its third reason for refusal would be addressed by the UU. As this is no longer a matter in dispute between the main parties, I have not dealt with it as a main issue in the appeal.

The main issues are: whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and; effects on the character and appearance of the area.

Policy SP4 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan adopted 2021 (the LP) states that in the Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development, and that proposals will be assessed in accordance with the government guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and National Planning Practice Guidance.

The Framework at paragraph 154 states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate, unless one of the exceptions it lists applies. Paragraph 155 also refers to circumstances where development should not be regarded as inappropriate, and relates to the use of grey belt land. There is dispute between the main parties as to whether the appeal site constitutes grey belt land.

Annex 2 of the Framework provides a definition of grey belt, being ‘land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/ or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143. The main parties agree that the site does not strongly contribute to purposes (b) and (d), which relate to the merging of towns into one another and the setting and special character of historic towns. I agree with those findings. The dispute instead surrounds the site’s contribution to purpose (a), to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and specifically whether Caddington is a large built-up area.

No definition of a large built-up area is provided by the Framework, although the PPG is clear that villages should not be considered as large built-up areas. The LP refers to Caddington as a [name], being defined as a larger settlement with some diversity in the range of services and facilities available, a basic retail offer and frequent public transport links. The settlement hierarchy in the LP goes on to include larger villages and small villages in the tiers below. Importantly, however, this designation does not state that Caddington is a town, and the LP states the settlement hierarchy is intended to help provide a framework for the level of new development in different settlements. For these reasons I do not find it conclusively points towards Caddington being a large built up area.

I observed Caddington to comprise features broadly consistent with its LP designation. It includes predominantly traditional residential development interspersed with services and facilities, including a primary school and churches. I observed a small collection of shops and facilities fronting onto an area akin to a village green towards the northern side of Caddington, which appeared to provide its focal point, while other facilities were more dispersed among the housing. I also observed evidence of bus services passing through. Caddington is otherwise set within a predominantly rural setting, and a spacious and verdant character washes over much of the settlement through its open spaces, grass verges and gardens. I also note the Neighbourhood Plan refers repeatedly to Caddington as a village. For these reasons in combination, I do not consider it to constitute a large built up area for the purposes of this assessment.

I have had regard to the appeal decision referred to by both main parties1. In that appeal the Inspector found that Harlington, similarly defined as a [name] in the LP, was a large built up area. I do not have details of the evidence which was before that Inspector, however I do not consider that decision binds my judgement, since it relates to a different settlement and one with different services and facilities including a station.

Given the appeal site adjoins the edge of Caddington, it follows that the site does not strongly contribute to purpose (a), to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. For the reasons set out further below, the application of policies in the Framework relating to habitats sites do not provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting the proposed development. Overall, the appeal site can be identified as grey belt.

Returning then to the provisions of paragraph 155, in order not to be inappropriate development, all criteria should apply. With regard to point a), the Council accept that the Green Belt Assessment referred to by the appellant2 is out of date and its findings pre date the current PPG and guidance relating to the Green Belt’s purposes. Given the size of the appeal site, adjoining development and its position relative to the settlements, I do not consider this development would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area as a whole. With regard to point b) and having regard to the footnote, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the housing proposed, given the absence of a five year land supply of deliverable housing sites. Given the site’s proximity to Caddington and the services described above, together with its connection by a footpath and proximity to a bus route, the site would be in a sustainable location, supporting sustainable transport modes. Criteria c) is therefore met. Criteria d) relates to the [name] and applies only to major development as defined by the Framework, which is not the case here.

For the reasons set out, and in conclusion on this main issue, the proposed development would meet the criteria set out in paragraph 155 of the Framework and the development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposal would comply with Policy SP4 of the LP, summarised above.

Given this finding, it is not necessary to go on to consider the effects of the proposal on the Green Belt’s openness, or whether very special circumstances exist.

The existing site comprises open grassland, enclosed by trees and hedgerows. There is very little visibility into the site from [site address] due to the dense southern boundary, and boundary planting also heavily limits visibility from the neighbouring properties at [address]. Nonetheless, the site contributes to the rural setting of 1 APP/P0240/W/24/3355615 2 The Central Bedfordshire/ Luton Green Belt Study 2017 Caddington and the appreciation of a transition from the settlement to the open countryside when travelling along [site address] .

The proposal would undoubtedly have some urbanising effects, arising from the new homes as well as the new access, the subdivision of the land into plots and paraphernalia associated with the site’s occupation. The extent of those effects would depend on the final quantum of development and the boundary treatments among other factors, which would be assessed at the technical details stage.

The site is situated adjacent to existing development in Caddington, and the proposal would appear as a logical extension to the edge of the settlement. Some urbanising effects would not therefore be at odds with the character of the area. It would also be positioned close to other existing buildings including those around [address] and the visual effects of the development would be localised. I see no strong reason that the development could not be capable of respecting the existing settlement form, local distinctiveness and its relationship with the surrounding countryside. Similarly the proposal would be capable of maintaining the rural character and separation between the communities of Caddington and [name], as set out in the vision to the Neighbourhood Plan for Caddington and [name] 2016-2031.

I observed several notable trees close to the site’s boundaries. [name] see no strong reason that these should render this an unacceptable location for development and the effect of the development on them could reasonably be considered at the technical details stage.

In conclusion on this main issue, and having regard to the scope of considerations at this stage, I do not find conflict with policies HQ1, EE4 or EE5 of the LP which require, among other things, incorporation of existing hedgerows and trees in development, respect of intrinsic landscape character and the highest quality which responds to local context.

The Council’s reason for refusal also refers to LP Policy SP7 which states, among other things, that only particular development types will be permitted outside settlement envelopes. This proposal does not fall under any of the development types listed. Therefore, the proposal would conflict in part with Policy SP7.

The Council accept that it is unable to demonstrate a five year land supply for housing, citing a figure of 4.85 years at 1 April 20253. The provisions of paragraph 11d) of the Framework are therefore relevant to the appeal. I have found that the application of policies in the Framework protecting Green Belt and habitats sites do not provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

The adverse impact arising from granting PiP would be the conflict with Policy SP7 arising from development outside the settlement envelope. I have not, however, found that this would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Given the settlement envelope is based on delivery of development which predates the current housing target, I give the resulting harm only moderate weight. In terms of benefits, the proposal would provide new homes which would contribute to the local housing shortage and meet the national objective to boost 3 [name]: ‘Five year housing land supply statement and methodology for the five-year period commencing 1 April 2025’ the supply of homes. These would be in a sustainable location next to an established settlement. There would also be economic benefits arising from the construction and ongoing expenditure into the local economy by future occupants, providing support to Caddington. While the extent of these benefits would be limited by the scale of this development, the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when considered against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would therefore benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework and I find this amounts to a material consideration of sufficient weight to make a decision other than in accordance with

The site lies within the zone of influence of the [name] and Woods, which forms a part of the [name]. This is an extensive area of native beech woodland, designated for its qualifying features of Beech forests, semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland, and stag beetles. It has been shown that adverse impacts arise from recreational visits to the SAC, including damage to vegetation composition, trees and soils from trampling, contamination by litter and dog fouling, fire, as well as effects from harvesting and visitor infrastructure. Visitor surveys showed the vast majority of visitors travelled from home, with a significant proportion walking dogs. This has informed a zone of influence, within which people are likely to travel to the designated site for recreational purposes.

As the appeal site is within the zone of influence, its future occupants would therefore be very likely to visit the site for recreation. The development would therefore have a likely significant effect on the SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Accordingly, the proposal could compromise the conservation objectives of the special qualifying features and lead to an adverse effect on the integrity of the site.

The Council have a [name] (MS), which sets out measures to avoid adverse public access and disturbance impacts from development on the SAC. [name] sets out that Natural England have advised that the harmful effects can be sufficiently mitigated or avoided through measures set out in the MS. This includes deflecting visitors by providing alternative options, better management of visitors to reduce pressure in certain areas, influencing visitor behaviours and protecting sensitive features. In summary they comprise two elements, [name] and Monitoring (SAMMS), and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), and the MS sets out a tariff based approach for new dwellinghouses. I have no strong reason to doubt that a financial contribution to those measures would be successful in mitigating for the effects of the proposed development.

The UU would provide financial contributions to the SAMM and SANG, based on the number of dwellings once it is established. Both would be payable to the Council before the development commenced. On this basis I am satisfied that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the designated site. The proposal would comply with LP Policy EE3 insofar as it requires development not to have an adverse effect on European designated sites

I note the other matters raised by consultees and interested parties during the course of the application, including drainage, highways, trees, ecology and archaeology. Those would reasonably fall to be considered at the technical details consent stage and there is not substantive evidence to suggest they should prevent the principle of development in this location.

The PPG is clear that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of PiP. [name] note the comments of some consultees which include requests for conditions, these would need to be considered at the technical details stage, where these matters can be addressed and conditions can be imposed.

While the proposal would conflict in part with the development plan, there are material considerations, namely the approach of the Framework, which indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.