Appeal 6005098

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has two 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 two 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 technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted.

The appellant has submitted drawings showing a detached single storey dwelling to illustrate an option of how development could be accommodated on the appeal site2. As this is an application for permission in principle, I have considered these drawings to be indicative only.

The main issues are whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, land use, and amount of development with particular regard to: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan polices, and its effect on openness; and 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-012-20180615 2 Drawing references: D250-03 11.6.25; D250-02 A 11.6.25 • whether the site is appropriate for the development having regard to the countryside location and its accessibility to services and facilities.

The site lies in the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Development will not be inappropriate if one of the exceptions in paragraph 154 of the Framework applies. Paragraph 154g) is relevant in the circumstances of this appeal.

The site forms part of land at [site address] off the B5153 [site address] . Vegetation is encroaching into the site, but I observed during my site visit that the site is partly loosely hard surfaced and contains a greenhouse on a concrete base, with small accumulations of debris such as timber, pallets, and plastic pots. Moreover, it is within the curtilage of the stables and their associated hardstanding.

However, the glossary to the [name] and Chester Council Local Plan ([name]) [name] and [name] (Adopted 18 July 2019) (LP2) specifically excludes land and buildings used for outdoor sport and recreation (including amongst other things the keeping of horses) from the definition of previously developed land. Excluding equestrian use is more restrictive than the Framework definition but is based on the local circumstances of the area, however the local circumstances cited could apply to many locations. Furthermore, the development plan considers Green Belt by reference to the Framework, which is now more recent government policy. Accordingly, I accord significant weight to the Framework’s definition and therefore conclude that the site is previously developed land.

The site presently contains a domestic-scale greenhouse on a raised concrete base, which would be removed if planning permission were granted, and is otherwise free of built development. Openness has both spatial and visual dimensions. The detailed design, form and scale of the dwelling would be considered at the technical details consent stage, however taking account of the relative size of the appeal site and the existing stable building, a dwelling is likely to be subordinate in scale to the large stables. Nevertheless, introducing a dwelling in this location would add built form and associated domestic activities further into the fields beyond the road than other nearby domestic development and would diminish openness spatially.

Visually, the proposal would be seen in the context of the sporadic development in the wider vicinity, including the [name] properties and other individual dwellings. The site is set further back and is therefore more detached from the road and these properties. However, it is well contained to the side of the stables by post-and-rail fencing, hedging, and mature trees, although this screening would be less effective in winter. Beyond the screening provided by roadside hedges, glimpsed views are available from oblique angles and across fields from some nearby residential properties. The proposal would add to the visible built form associated with the stables and, through the introduction of domestic activity and paraphernalia, would give the site a more visibly domestic character contrasting with the current rural equestrian appearance.

Taking these matters together, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on openness visually and spatially, however the degree of harm arising from a single dwelling in this contained location would be limited and would not approach the level of substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, the proposal would accord with the exception in paragraph 154g) of the Framework.

Policy STRAT 9 of the [name] and Chester Council Local Strategic Policies Local Plan ([name]) (adopted 29 January 2015) (LP1) and policy DM19 of the LP2 advise that the Green Belt restrictions in the Framework will apply to development.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan polices, and its effect on openness.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the site is outside any identified settlement and therefore is in the countryside for the purposes of the development plan. Policy STRAT9 of LP1 seeks to protect the countryside by restricting development to that which requires a countryside location and cannot be accommodated in identified settlements and listing the types of development which will be permitted. The proposal is not a type of development which would be permitted and as a new dwelling would not of itself require a countryside location.

Policy DM19 of LP2 indicates that residential development in the countryside will only be supported where necessary to meet the minimum levels of development for new housing or where the proposal is for one of the types of development listed in the policy. The site does not accord with the list in the policy but as referred to below the Council does not have a five year supply of deliverable housing sites so further sites are necessary to meet that level of housing. Furthermore, Policy DM19 advises that proposals for development of land in the Green Belt must also accord with Green Belt policy in the Framework, but I have found above that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Accordingly, it would not specifically conflict with Policy DM19.

The nearest day-to-day services are located in Kingsley, including a primary school, convenience store, pharmacy, and other local facilities. These lie approximately 1.7 to 1.8 kilometres from the site, which exceeds the typical acceptable walking distances identified in the National Design Guide and related guidance. While a bus stop is located around 1.3 kilometres from the site, this also exceeds the generally accepted four hundred metres walking distance to a bus stop in the Manual for Streets. In addition, the service is limited to a two-hourly frequency between Frodsham and Northwich.

The route to Kingsley is along the B5153, a rural road subject to a fifty miles per hour speed limit, without street lighting and with a discontinuous and narrow footway requiring pedestrians to cross and re-cross the carriageway. Although cycling distances fall within a reasonable range, the absence of dedicated infrastructure and the road conditions would reduce the attractiveness of this as an option for future occupiers. In any event future occupiers would have to travel beyond Kingsley for a greater range of services and employment opportunities. Taken together, these factors indicate that future occupiers would generally be reliant on the private car and would not have a genuine choice of sustainable transport modes.

For these reasons I conclude that the site is not appropriate for the development having regard to the countryside location and its accessibility to services and facilities. Accordingly, there would be conflict with Policies STRAT1, STRAT2 and STRAT9 of the LP1, and Policy R1 of LP2 in so far as they seek development that has good accessibility to services and good connections to public transport and seek to bring development forward in line with the adopted settlement hierarchy.

The main parties considered whether the site would meet the definition of grey belt and would resultantly not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt in accordance with paragraph 155 of the Framework. [name] have found that the proposal would be an exception to being inappropriate in the Green Belt in accordance with paragraph 154g) of the Framework I have not considered the question of grey belt further.

The Council acknowledge they are unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and have not disputed the appellant’s updated figure of 1.89 years according to the 2025 housing land monitoring report. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development in paragraph 11d of the Framework is engaged.

The Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing and indicates that small and medium sites including windfalls can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement for an area. Although the Framework advises that great weight should be given to the use of suitable windfall sites in existing settlements, having regard to my findings above concerning the site’s location and accessibility I do not attach the great weight envisaged by the Framework to this being a windfall site.

Redeveloping previously developed land is supported by the Framework, although the appeal site is not within a settlement, so it attracts modest weight. Economic benefits would arise from construction, and future occupiers would be likely to support the services and facilities that exist in nearby settlements contributing to the vitality of rural communities as advised by paragraph 83 of the Framework. The housing supply shortfall is significant, but the single dwelling proposed would make a very modest contribution. Therefore, I accord these benefits modest weight overall.

The location of the site would not be an appropriate location for development having regard to the local plan policies concerning development in the countryside and its accessibility to services and facilities. Notwithstanding the Framework’s acknowledgment that sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, the high degree of dependency on private motor vehicles and conflict with the Council’s spatial strategy weigh significantly against the proposal.

Accordingly, I find that the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal is contrary to the development plan read as a whole, and other material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.