Appeal 6005219

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 permitted. 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 appeal stems from the failure of the Council to determine the application for permission in principle within the prescribed period. No officer report was made available to me. However, the Council did submit a short statement which outlines a putative reason for refusal for if it had determined the application.

The main issues are: • whether the site location, proposed use, and scale of development are appropriate for residential development, with specific regard to whether the scheme represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt and encroachment into the open countryside; • whether the appeal site is grey belt land; and, • if it would be inappropriate, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out at Paragraph 154 that the provision of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate other than for certain exceptions. Policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2017 (LP) seeks to protect the Cheshire East Green Belt. In that respect, its aims are broadly consistent with the Framework. However, Policy PG3 pre-dates the Framework and as such, does not make reference to Grey Belt. As such, Policy PG3 is out of step with the Framework. I have therefore afforded substantial weight to the Framework with regard to Green Belt related matters.

The Statement of Case and Planning Statement provided by the appellant immediately set out their assessment of the proposal against Paragraph 155 of the Framework. In the interests of completeness, I have assessed the appeal proposal against the exceptions to development in the Green Belt at Paragraph 154 of the Framework. I am not of the view that the appeal proposal would meet any of the exceptions listed, nor has it been explicitly evidenced that the proposal would meet one of these exceptions.

My attention therefore turns to Paragraph 155 of the Framework, which states that residential, commercial and other development in the Green Belt is not inappropriate where all four criteria are met. Point (a) requires that the development is located on Grey Belt land and does not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the plan area.

The Framework Glossary defines the Grey Belt as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land, or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in Paragraph 143 of the Framework. Furthermore, Grey Belt excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in Footnote 7, other than the Green Belt, would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. It does not appear from the evidence before me that any other of the areas or assets listed in Footnote 7 are applicable. Therefore, I have proceeded to assess the proposed development against Paragraph 155 (a) of the Framework.

Paragraph 143 of the Framework sets out the 5 purposes of the Green Belt. The purpose found at point (a) is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. The evidence before me indicates that the appeal site is located within the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan area, yet sits outside of the settlement boundary of [site address] itself. To the north of the village of [site address] is the town of Wilmslow. For the purposes of my assessment against Paragraph 143 of the Framework, I have considered Wilmslow as a large built-up area, and [site address] as a village.

The PPG identifies illustrative features which would demonstrate a strong contribution to this purpose, including likely being free of existing development, and lacking physical features in reasonable proximity that could restrict and contain development. Areas are also likely to be adjacent or near to a large built-up area, and if developed, result in an incongruous pattern of development such as an extended ‘finger’ of development into the Green Belt.

Illustrative features demonstrating only a moderate contribution would likely be a site adjacent or near to a large built up area, but having physical features in reasonable proximity that could restrict and contain development; being partially enclosed by existing development such that new development would not result in an incongruous pattern; containing existing development; and/or being subject to other urbanising influences.

The appeal site is currently free from any existing development. The extract from the Local Plan Policies Map, presented at Figure 7 of the appellant’s statement, provides an important spatial context for the site’s location. This mapping clearly illustrates that the appeal site lies significantly closer to the settlement boundary of Wilmslow than to that of [site address] . As such, it should be regarded as being adjacent to, or in close proximity to, a substantial built‐up area. I acknowledge the appellant’s argument that the site is within walking and cycling distance of shops, services, and public transport connections in [site address] . I do not dispute this. But, it is equally important to recognise that the site is similarly well‐located in relation to comparable facilities within Wilmslow.

The appeal site is situated to the south of the A34 [name] roundabout. This roundabout comprises two traffic lanes, pedestrian crossings, cycle lanes, road signage and streetlighting, and therefore represents a notable urbanising feature within the local landscape. I acknowledge that the appellant has referred to a previous appeal decision in support of their case. In that example, the Inspector concluded that the site was contained by strong physical and natural boundaries. In particular, the decision highlighted the M25 motorway along the western boundary as a highly significant physical feature capable of preventing sprawl.

The circumstances in the present case are materially different. The A34 [name] roundabout and its associated road layout do not approach the scale or strategic function of a motorway, let alone one of the size and prominence of the M25, which encircles London. Instead, the roundabout here represents a typical piece of highway infrastructure commonly found on the edges of many towns and does not provide a boundary of comparable magnitude or containment value.

I observed during my site visit that trees are present along the boundaries of the appeal site. There is no convincing evidence before me to indicate that any of these trees are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The appellant argues that the trees and surrounding hedgerows provide effective containment and screening. However, in the absence of any formal protection, there is no mechanism to ensure that these features would be retained for the lifetime of the development, and therefore their long‐term contribution to containment cannot be relied upon.

To the south lies a clinic known as Medispa. The appellant notes that this building historically functioned as a farmhouse associated with the surrounding agricultural land. It is a modest‐scale structure, and its former agricultural character was readily apparent during my site visit. Such buildings are not uncommon within the open countryside. [name], there is no further development for a considerable distance to the south.

To the opposite side of the B5359, facing the appeal site, lies The Merlin public house, a pair of dwellings adjacent to the A34 roundabout, and a further cluster of properties extending south of The Merlin. A new housing development was also under construction at the time of my site visit. However, their ability to provide meaningful containment of the appeal site is limited. This is primarily due to their position on the far side of the B5359, which creates a clear physical separation from the appeal site and represents an established line of development distinct from the appeal site side of the highway.

Accordingly, when returning to the guidance in the PPG, although the A34 provides a degree of containment along the northern and western boundaries, the site is only partially enclosed overall. The openness of the land to the south maintains a perceptible gap between the settlement of [site address] and the larger built‐up area of Wilmslow.

Bringing these considerations together, and having regard to the guidance within the PPG, the development of the appeal site would result in an extended ‘finger’ of development projecting from Wilmslow. This arises from the site’s close proximity to the existing built‐up area and the fact that the land between is currently free from development. [name] acknowledge that the roundabout to the north and the clinic to the south provide a degree of containment, these features are limited in scale. Consequently, they do not prevent the perception of outward encroachment from the larger settlement of Wilmslow.

Several decisions have been submitted which, it is argued, demonstrate inconsistency in the Council’s assessment of Grey Belt sites. However, each application must be determined on its own merits, and it is evident that the example sites and their respective contexts differ materially from one another. While there may be thematic similarities, a decision reached elsewhere does not, in itself, indicate inconsistency in decision‐making. Nevertheless, I have considered the examples provided and have reached a view on the differences they carry in relation to the appeal before me.

The Jenny Heyes application was recommended for approval by officers but was subsequently refused by Members at Planning Committee, which they were entitled to do. In the [address] example, a substantial number of residential properties were located on both sides of the site, with no intervening features, such as a road, separating them from the boundary. This differs materially from the appeal site, which is contained only by the limited nature of the A34 on two sides and by a single former farmhouse on another.

With regard to the Caudebec example, that site was enclosed on all sides by various forms of development, rather than solely by a highway or an isolated former farmhouse. Turning to the [address] case, while it may initially appear to share similarities with the appeal site, given that it was bounded by development on three sides, the key distinction lies in the proximity of other residential properties to its boundaries, as well as the presence of greenhouses to the rear. Collectively, these features provide a level of enclosure that is significantly greater in scale than the single farmhouse to the south of the appeal site and the A34 along two of its boundaries.

To conclude, in light of the guidance within the PPG, these factors lead me to the conclusion that these elements of the appeal site demonstrate a moderate to strong contribution to checking the unrestricted sprawl of the large built-up area of Wilmslow. The appeal site therefore provides a strong overall performance in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, as set out at Paragraph 143 (a) of the Framework. The development of up to six dwellings in this location would fundamentally undermine this purpose of the Green Belt across the plan area. This criterion at Paragraph 155 (a) is not therefore met and the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development. As all four criteria of Paragraph 155 are required to be met, I have not undertaken a further assessment of the compliance with the other requirements listed in Paragraph 154 of the Framework either.

My attention is now turned to the conflict of the proposal with Policy PG6 of the LP, which is concerned with the open countryside. The proposed development would not be essential for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation or public infrastructure. It would therefore fail to meet point 2 of Policy PG6.

It would not provide an infill development within a village, due to its location beyond the settlement boundary of [site address] . It would not provide affordable housing, nor does the limited evidence before me, expected with an application for permission in principle, lead me to the conclusion that the proposal would create dwellings that are exceptional in design and sustainable development terms. It would not re-use or replace existing buildings. It does not involve an extension to an existing dwelling or is it for a development that is essential for the expansion or redevelopment of an existing business. It would not involve the conversion of a heritage asset. Taking these considerations into account, the proposal would fail to satisfy any of the exceptions listed in point 3 of Policy PG6 of the LP.

Point 4 of Policy PG6 of the LP the retention of gaps between settlements is important. This is to maintain the definition and separation of existing communities and their individual character. The proposed development would occupy an area of land which plays a fundamental role in preventing the sprawl of Wilmslow towards [site address] .

For the reasons given above, the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of points 2, 3 and 4 of Policy PG6 of the LP the relevant requirements of which have been explored above.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and it would not be Grey Belt land. Substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations as set out at Paragraph 153 of the Framework.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. The scheme would provide six dwellings to the supply of housing. In an era of national, and evidently local shortages, this is a matter which attracts moderate weight.

Economic benefits would also be experienced through the construction of the scheme, such as through the procurement of materials. It would also provide a source of employment during the construction phase. However, for six dwellings, this would be limited. Furthermore, once completed, the future occupants of these dwellings would utilise local shops, services and contribute towards Council tax receipts. These are positive benefits which also attract limited, but positive weight. The compliance with the development plan on other planning considerations is an absence of harm.

These other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist.

The proposal would conflict with the requirements of the Framework. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.