Appeal 6005035

The appeal is dismissed.

The Planning Practice Guidance advises that permission in principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The consent route has two stages: the first stage (permission in principle) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle; and the second stage (technical details consent) (TDC) is when the detailed development proposal is assessed. This appeal relates to the first of the two stages. The scope of consideration is therefore limited to location, land use and amount of development. A Proposed Block Plan1 has been submitted that shows how the site could be developed and is clearly marked as indicative only.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is suitable for the proposal, regarding location, land use and amount of development, and specifically in terms of: • whether it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies, and the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • the effect of the proposal on highway safety; and 1 [name]/MR/2025/003. • whether the 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 appeal site comprises the residential plot of No [address] (No 276) and the adjacent paddock that stretches behind several other properties that front onto [address] (MR). The topography of the land inclines away from MR on either side, resulting in views across the valley from parts of the site, despite the presence of substantial hedgerow and tree boundaries. Public Footpath 22 (PF22) runs through part of the site, connecting MR with [address]. A small plot containing a [name] sits adjacent to the site off MR. This part of [site address] is characterised by linear road fronting development.

The scheme is for the construction of between 4 and 9 dwellings. Whilst the exact number of dwellings would be established at TDC stage, this decision is based on the greatest number of dwellings the proposal could bring forward, which would likely have the greatest impact.

The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Policy SP4 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) (LP) is broadly consistent with the general thrust of national Green Belt policy. It confirms that there is a presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that proposals should be considered in-line with national planning policy. The Framework provides that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the specified exceptions applies. One of the exceptions is set out at Paragraph 155 of the Framework and confirms that proposals for the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where qualifying criteria are met in relation to Grey Belt land.

The appeal site would utilise Grey Belt land. Criteria c. requires the proposal to be in a sustainable location. It is acknowledged that the site is not in an isolated location being adjacent to an existing dwelling and that accessibility varies between rural and urban contexts. However, the site is most closely linked to the village of [site address] , which has very limited services and facilities. Furthermore, the settlement of Caddington, which benefits from a wider offer that is more akin to serving the day-to-day needs of residents, is a substantial distance away (approximately 1.6km). To access it on foot, residents would need to walk along MR, a largely unlit rural road that only benefits from intermittent footpath provision.

The nearest bus stops are located on [address], approximately 570m from the appeal site. Whilst the distance would in isolation be acceptable, being within the 800m acceptable walking distance advocated by Manual for Streets, residents would need to navigate a long stretch of bridleway, which is narrow, enclosed by vegetation and uneven under foot. The route would therefore not be convenient, particularly in inclement weather or during the dark, and for those with small children or mobility challenges. Whilst the Inspector in a nearby appeal case2 found that site to be in a sustainable location, their findings were heavily reliant on much 2 [name]/P0240/W/24/3349844. closer and easier to access bus stops, which are no longer operational. Bus stops on [address] are accessible via the largely continuous footpath along MR. However, they are a substantial distance away at over 900m. Cycling could provide an alternative to walking to Caddington for example, but it is not a mode of travel that is open to all.

Consequently, residents would be highly reliant on private car use, and the appeal site is not locationally sustainable. Thus, the proposal would not benefit from the exception at Paragraph 155.

Although part of the site contains the dwelling at No 276, it is a largely undeveloped plot of land that includes a paddock through which PF22 runs. This would fundamentally change with the introduction of a significant amount of built form beyond the existing confines of the village. Furthermore, a large part of the appeal site is at an elevated position above MR, views of which would be observed to a certain extent from across the small valley. For these reasons, the amount of residential development proposed would result in a harmful loss of openness from a spatial and visual perspective.

Consequently, the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful as set out at Paragraph 153 of the Framework. Thus, it would also be contrary to LP Policy SP4. It would also be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.

Whilst general design and appearance matters are for consideration at TDC stage, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area can go to the heart of the principle of the scheme, particularly when considering the amount of development proposed and the existing site characteristics.

The appeal site has a narrow frontage, and the rear part of the plot and the adjacent paddock would need to be utilised to accommodate the amount of development proposed. It would therefore be highly likely that built development would be within a back land location to the rear of the properties fronting onto MR, contrary to the prevailing characteristics of the built environment in the surrounding area. Some contrary examples have been provided from other parts of [site address] . However, there is no substantive evidence to confirm they were approved under the same or similar planning policy context. Furthermore, some appear to relate to the conversion of existing buildings. It is therefore not clear whether they are wholly comparable to this case.

The site does not form a strategic gap between settlements, is not covered by any specific landscape designation and is largely contained within substantial verdant boundaries. However, walkers using this part of PF22 currently experience a relatively peaceful and undeveloped plot of land, aside from the existing dwelling at No 276. The paddock has a largely rural feel and is distinctive from the otherwise built form of the village. This quantum of built development would fundamentally alter the character of this part of the site.

Whilst there are trees and hedgerows within the site, which contribute to its verdant surroundings, there are also large gaps between them that have the potential to accommodate the proposal. The matter of tree and hedgerow retention would be considered at TDC stage.

For the above reasons, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area regarding land use and the amount of development proposed. Thus, it would be contrary to [name] HQ1, HQ8, EE4 and EE5, which, amongst other things, require new development to respond positively to its context by taking account of opportunities to enhance or reinforce the local distinctiveness of the area, and resist the development of back land sites where they are against the existing pattern and grain of development.

It is acknowledged that the site’s frontage onto MR is narrow and appears to be the only option for gaining vehicular access to the proposed development. Furthermore, the church’s front wall abuts the site boundary and is located adjacent to a stretch of footpath along MR that is relatively narrow. Whilst there are concerns regarding these site constraints, there is no substantive technical evidence to demonstrate that acceptable visibility splays could not be achieved. This is a detailed design and layout matter that would be considered at TDC stage.

Thus, the proposal would not be detrimental to highway safety regarding location, land use and the amount of development proposed. It therefore accords with LP Policy T2, which, amongst other things, states that new development must not have a detrimental effect on highway safety and must provide appropriate access.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (5YHLS). The Council maintains that the conclusion of their 5YHLS Statement (for the period commencing 1 April 2025) remains relevant in stating that they have a 4.85-year supply, which would equate to only a marginal deficit. However, a recent appeal decision3 has been presented that postdates the 5YHLS Statement. The Inspector in that case agreed with the appellant’s evidence that asserted the Council could only demonstrate a 3.95-year supply. There is no substantive evidence to refute the Inspector’s conclusion in that case, and the latter position is therefore favoured. The development of between 4 and 9 dwellings would contribute positively to general housing supply and assist in reducing the deficit, particularly given that the land is largely underutilised and is likely to come forward relatively quickly.

Although the [name] is within a constrained plot that does not benefit from the provision of off-road vehicle parking, MR is relatively quiet and vehicles park along it. There is no substantive evidence to suggest that on-road parking becomes an issue during church gatherings or that there is a demand for on-site provision. Thus, the setting aside of land within the appeal site to facilitate dedicated church parking spaces attracts limited weight as a benefit.

The appellant has also offered to widen PF22 along the narrow stretch that runs between the residential plots of No 276 and No 268 MR, which would be welcomed by the Council’s Public Rights of Way team and could be secured at TDC stage. However, it is unclear whether this betterment could be achieved outside of this proposal and no firm details of the level of improvement have been provided.

There would also be some economic benefits to the proposal, including employment and supply chain spend during the construction phase and support for 3 [name]/P0240/W/25/3371676. the local economy once occupied. However, such benefits would only be limited given the small scale of the proposal.

The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm its openness, which should be afforded substantial weight. Furthermore, harm has been identified to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The other considerations identified above do not outweigh the harm found. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed scheme do not exist.

The appeal site is within the zone of influence of the Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation, and it is noted that the appellants submitted a completed [name] during the appeal process to secure financial contributions towards [name] and Monitoring, and the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace. However, as the appeal is to be dismissed, there is no need to undertake an appropriate assessment or to have regard to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations.

The Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. The proposal is not in accordance with LP policies relating to development within the Green Belt and character and appearance. It is therefore contrary to the development plan and should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5YHLS. In such circumstances, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged, which confirms that permission should be granted 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. Footnote 7 confirms that the Green Belt is regarded as a protected area or asset of particular importance. The associated main issue and the Green Belt conclusion above demonstrate that harm is found that attracts substantial weight, which provides a strong reason for refusal in this case. Therefore, the proposed development cannot benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as articulated at Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations that would indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Thus, the appeal should be dismissed.