Appeal 6004831

The appeal is dismissed.

Amended plans were submitted with the appeal to address the third, fourth and fifth reasons for refusal relating to highway safety and parking. Changes have been made to parking layouts, the road width and the site access. Although the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, the amendments are in response to technical matters and have been subject to formal discussion with the local highway authority following the Council’s refusal of planning permission. I am satisfied that they would not cause a fundamental change to the proposal and would not result in procedural unfairness to anyone else involved in this case. Therefore, I have taken the amended plans into account as part of this appeal.

The sixth reason for refusal concerned the lack of information to demonstrate that effects on great crested newts could be mitigated. This has now been addressed following the completion of a District License to ensure adequate mitigation would be provided and secured via planning condition. For the same reasons as the previous paragraph, I am content to accept this additional information and consider that the sixth reason for refusal relating to protected species has been resolved.

The main issues are: (a) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and any relevant development plan policies; (b) the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; (c) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; (d) the effect of the proposal on highway safety and parking; and (e) whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The site is in the South Bedfordshire Green Belt on the edge of the village of [name]. It is a large field, overgrown at the time of my visit, that is free of development apart from two small rudimentary outbuildings. Policy SP4 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035 (LP) states that within the Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development and proposals will be assessed in accordance with government guidance in the NPPF and National Planning Practice Guidance.

NPPF paragraph 154 states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the specified exceptions apply, none of which are relevant to this proposal. NPPF paragraph 155 sets out that the development of homes, commercial or other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all the criteria in (a) to (d) apply.

The site is not adjacent to a large built up area, between neighbouring towns, or within the setting of a historic town. Consequently, it does not make a strong contribution to Green Belt purposes (a), (b) or (d) as set out in NPPF paragraph

There are also no policies relating to areas or assets of particular importance that are relevant to this appeal other than Green Belt. Therefore, the site can be regarded as grey belt land in line with the NPPF definition. Given the extent of the Green Belt in [name] and the comparatively small size of the site, the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the five purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. Thus, I concur with the main parties that NPPF paragraph 155(a) would be met in this case.

While the main parties take differing views on the exact supply figure, they both agree there is no 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites and so there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. I have no reason to disagree and so NPPF paragraph 155(b) would also be met. The proposal does not meet the definition of major development and so NPPF paragraph 155(d) on the [name] is not applicable in this case.

NPPF paragraph 155(c) is disputed as to whether the development would be in a sustainable location with particular reference to NPPF paragraphs 110 and 115. These paragraphs require significant development to focus on locations which are or can be made sustainable through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes, while recognising differences between urban and rural areas.

[name] has a lower school, a village hall, a playpark, and a public house but few other facilities. There is a bus service into Luton, but only 5 services a day on Mondays to Fridays and none at weekends. [name] is walkable, albeit down a hill, but there is little more than a day nursery and a church in that settlement. The roads into Luton or Harlington involve relatively steep gradients and lack safe pedestrian or cycle provision making these modes of transport unappealing. I am unaware of any plans, either through this proposal or elsewhere, to enhance the range of transport modes for [name].

There have been two recently dismissed appeal decisions elsewhere in [name] which are of relevance to this issue. The first at Sear Farm1 dated 24 January 2025 refers to an edge of village location close to services and facilities and a proposal that would support such services and local facilities. However, this formed part of the assessment of benefits from that proposal, rather than as part of the NPPF paragraph 155 assessment. The Inspector did not address paragraph 155(c) because they had already found the proposal failed paragraph 155(d) on the [name] and so was inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It is not possible to know if the Inspector would have found the proposal to be in a sustainable location under paragraph 155(c).

The second appeal decision at 22 Common Lane2 dated 16 September 2025 found the development there to not be in sustainable location under NPPF paragraph 155(c). The Inspector considered [name] to be a small village without any shops or services, although noted the bus route to Luton with limited services. They found the development would not allow access to shops and services by a choice of transport modes. This led to the conclusion that the proposal was inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

There are some differences between the two decisions and the evidence before an Inspector in each case inevitably varies. It is clear that [name] has some services and facilities, but these are limited and do not provide much in the way of day to day need in terms of matters such as retail, healthcare or employment. The public transport option is better than some villages but restricted to a handful of services in the week. Walking and cycling beyond the village for purposes other than recreational seems unlikely. Occupants of the proposal are therefore likely to be largely reliant on the private car to access most services and facilities.

Based on my assessment, I conclude that the development proposed in this appeal would not be in a sustainable location. It would not limit the need to travel or offer a genuine choice of transport modes. While this is a rural location, it is close enough to a major urban area where opportunities to maximise sustainable transport modes could be achieved but this is not presently the case. Therefore, the proposal would not meet NPPF paragraph 155(c) and so should be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

NPPF paragraph 142 states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. [name] is classified by the LP as a washed over settlement in the Green Belt where Policy SP4 requires proposals to be sympathetic to the character and openness of the settlement and its surroundings.

The site is enclosed by mature vegetation along much of its boundary and is barely visible from [address] and the public right of way (PROW) that run along the 1 APP/P0240/W/24/3348840. [address] is located a short distance to the north-east of the appeal site. The proposal was for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of nine dwellings and a new estate road. 2 APP/P0240/W/25/3363914. [address] is immediately opposite the appeal site. The proposal was for a rural exception scheme to demolish existing structures and construct a pair of semi-detached bungalows and a separate bungalow. northern boundary particularly in summer months. Nevertheless, openness has both spatial and visual qualities. Spatially, there would be considerably more built development within the site than at present, with 9 two storey properties positioned around the eastern and southern sides served by an access road. Consequently, there would be a significant adverse effect on openness in spatial terms. Visually, the creation of an access point and visibility splays onto [address] would open views of the development from a public vantage point, although the retention of most boundary vegetation would limit the overall effect. Nevertheless, there would still be a moderate adverse effect on openness in visual terms. There would also be adverse effects on openness from activities and movements associated with the new housing, although this would be minor given the scale of the overall proposal.

The site does not make a strong contribution to Green Belt purposes (a), (b) or (d) and so the development would have little adverse effect on them. However, purpose (c) seeks to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. The site is beyond the edge of the village. Despite the glimpses of existing properties on [address] and [name], it has a rural feel due to its largely undeveloped state and the maturity of boundary planting. Heading along [address] and the PROW, there is a sense of moving into the countryside once you pass the properties at 9 and [address]. Thus, while the effect would be limited by the site’s enclosed nature, there would still be moderate conflict with purpose (c).

As an edge of village site, the proposal would not assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict or other urban land. However, there is little evidence to suggest that a proposal of this scale would prohibit such regeneration. Therefore, there would be very little conflict with purpose (e).

[name] is characterised by linear residential development along the main roads of [address], [address] and [address] with the wider countryside beyond. This linear character continues along the side road of [address] which contains mostly two storey semi-detached properties. The road ends with single storey bungalows at Nos 9 and 22, which allows a transition into the countryside beyond, accessible via the PROW. [name] is another short linear side road, with [address] the only significant location of backland housing.

The site’s green and mostly undeveloped qualities mean it feels part of the surrounding countryside rather than part of the village. The dense boundary planting limits views of the site from [address] and the PROW but it still makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would comprise detached, semi-detached and terraced properties not dissimilar in scale, height, architecture and materials to the rest of [name]. It would retain much of the boundary planting with additional planting along the access road and a large area of green space kept as part of the drainage basin. The housing would not be seen for much of [address] and the PROW and would have limited landscape and visual effects from the wider area.

However, the proposal would extend the village edge further to the west with a backland style of development. The spacing and arrangement of buildings set away from [address] and the rest of the village would not fit into the settlement’s predominantly linear grain. There would also be an urbanisation of the site with 9 dwellings, an access road and car parking that would be noticeable from the proposed site entrance. Thus, there would be a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area which would not be adequately offset by the existence of boundary planting.

Consequently, the proposal would not accord with [name] HQ1 and HQ8 which, amongst other things, require developments to enhance or reinforce local distinctiveness and resist backland schemes where they would be against the existing pattern and grain of development and the character and appearance of the area would be harmed. The proposal would also conflict with NPPF section 12 which, amongst other things, seeks development that is sympathetic to local character and achieves good design.

The amended plans ensure that each dwelling would be provided with sufficient parking to comply with the Council’s parking standards by removing overly long tandem parking and ensuring at least one parking space outside each property. The carriageway width has been widened to meet adoptable standards with the footway extended further into the site and clearer demarcation of the private parking area for the end two properties. Technical drawings now show that sufficient pedestrian and vehicular visibility splays can be achieved onto [address] and the PROW, and that larger vehicles can safely enter and exit the site. There is little evidence to support claims that [address] is too narrow for additional traffic or that its junction with the main road has substandard visibility.

Based on these amended plans and the imposition of suitable conditions, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on highway safety and parking. Therefore, it would accord with [name] T2, T3 and EE12 which, amongst other things, seek to avoid detrimental effects on highway safety while providing adequate parking and protecting the public rights of way network. The proposal would also accord with NPPF section 9 which, amongst other things, requires safe and suitable access, appropriate parking, and the avoidance of unacceptable harm to highway safety.

The proposal would deliver 9 dwellings in the context of a current shortfall in the Council’s 5 year housing land supply. The Council’s position is that the supply stands at 4.85 years (a shortfall of 285 dwellings) whereas the appellant contends it is only 3.52 years (a shortfall of 3,064 dwellings). This is due to differences in how the housing requirement has been calculated and the deliverability of specific sites. The Council has not responded to the appellant’s evidence. Adopting the appellant’s position purely for the purposes of this appeal, the provision of 9 dwellings would only provide a modest boost to a shortfall of over 3,000 dwellings. Therefore, I afford no more than moderate weight to the delivery of housing in this case, notwithstanding several expressions of support for the scheme locally.

Despite the negative effects on character and appearance, the dwellings appear to be well-designed with no apparent flaws in internal or external space provision, while there would be landscaping within the site. However, there is little to suggest that the design goes beyond what would normally be expected from new housing developments and so I afford these other considerations only moderate weight.

There would be some economic benefits from the construction phase and longer term spending in the local area from new occupants, but these carry no more than moderate weight given the relative size of the development. Modest weight can be afforded to fiscal benefits. Subject to a suitably worded condition or planning obligation, there would be a biodiversity net gain of 10% delivered off site, which can be afforded moderate weight.

A draft replacement NPPF was published for consultation in December 2025. Draft policy HO7 states that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of providing accommodation towards meeting local needs. Draft policy S5 supports development outside settlements that would address an evidenced unmet need and is well related to an existing settlement. However, the draft NPPF is subject to change. The proposal is required to be assessed against the current NPPF and the development plan. Therefore, I give limited weight to the draft NPPF in this case.

NPPF paragraph 153 states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It also advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm arising from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The proposal would cause harm to the Green Belt due to its inappropriateness. It would also cause significant harm to Green Belt openness and conflict with the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. These carry substantial weight against the proposal. There would also be harm to the character and appearance of the area which carries significant weight.

No more than moderate weight can be afforded to the delivery of housing and the social, economic and environmental benefits listed above. Individually and cumulatively, the other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal do not exist. Therefore, the proposal would not accord with LP Policy SP4 or NPPF paragraphs 153 or 155.

The lack of a 5 year housing land supply triggers NPPF paragraph 11(d) where the most important policies for determining an application are deemed to be out of date. However, the application of Green Belt policies in the NPPF provides a clear reason for refusing the proposal and so the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply in this case. The proposal would be contrary to [name] SP4, HQ1 and HQ8 with no material considerations to indicate that planning permission should be granted.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.