Appeal 6005282

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the heading above is taken from the application form. The Council’s decision notice also referred to bin storage and hardstanding in the description of development. Whilst the appellant agreed to the description change, I have reverted to the original description of development proposed as this was more concise and appropriately described the development proposed.

The main issues are: • 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 policies, including the effect upon the openness of the Green Belt; • whether adequate information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal can deliver the requirements and commitments towards climate change and whether this would be delivered by an appropriate mechanism; • whether adequate information has been submitted to demonstrate the proposal would meet the requirements for self-build housing and/or [name] and whether this would be delivered by an appropriate mechanism; and • 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 appeal site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Paragraph 143 of the Framework sets out the purposes of the Green Belt which are; to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 154 of the Framework establishes that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate, unless it meets a listed exception. Policy QP5 of the Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 (BLP) conforms with national Green Belt policy, allowing certain forms of development, including limited infilling, in the Green Belt in certain circumstances.

Paragraph 154(e) of the Framework explains that limited infilling in villages is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Neither ‘village’ nor ‘limited infilling’ are defined in the Framework. Policy QP5 of the BLP also allows for limited infilling outside village settlement boundaries where it can be demonstrated that the site falls within the village envelope as assessed on the ground. In assessing the village envelope, Policy QP5 requires that consideration be given to the concentration, scale, massing, extent, and density of built form on either side of the village boundary and the physical proximity of the proposed site to the village.

The BLP Proposals Map identifies that the appeal site is located outside of, but close to, the Fifield settlement boundary. Fifield village is located to the north of the appeal site. The village is centred around [address] and mainly comprises a close-knit group of residential properties in a nucleated form. The development between the village boundary and the appeal site is more linear in form along [address] with larger gaps between properties and a looser grain of development running primarily along only one side of the road. Other small groups of properties sit along the southern edges of the village, but they are separated from the village by intervening fields.

The appeal site is situated within [site address] , a complex of farm and residential buildings, located on the south side of [site address] and west of [address]. Whilst the site is located adjacent to [name], a residential property, the wider complex is surrounded by open countryside with open fields also located opposite the site. Consequently, when assessing the site on the ground, the site is clearly outside the settlement boundary and due to the lower concentration and density of development, the site does not form part of the wider village envelope. Therefore, for the purposes of the Framework and BLP Policy Q5, the site is not within a village.

Even if I were to conclude that the proposed development would be limited infilling, due to its position between [name] and [name], the site is not within a village. Consequently, the exception under Paragraph 154(e) of the Framework is not met and the proposal would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and its essential characteristics are therefore its permanence and openness. Considerations of openness have both visual and spatial aspects.

The proposed development would form part of a complex of farm and residential buildings and would be situated on an open plot of land behind a tall hedge. Despite the proposal being of a modest size within the plot, and garden space provided to all sides of the proposed bungalow, it would still occupy an area of open land within the complex that is currently devoid of buildings. As a result, the proposed development would reduce the spatial aspect of the Green Belt’s openness.

Views of the proposed bungalow would be generally limited to the site access. However, the roof of the dwelling would be visible above the hedge by users of [site address] and from the open countryside opposite the site. This would detract from the open character of this part of the countryside and would reduce the visual aspect of the Green Belt’s openness.

Overall, there would be moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt in both visual and spatial terms.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework sets out that the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where it utilises grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt; where it would meet a demonstrable unmet need; would be in a sustainable location; and (where applicable) meets the ‘[name]. For the proposed development to be considered as not inappropriate within the Green Belt, all the criteria outlined within Paragraph 155 of the Framework are required to be met. The term ‘Grey Belt’ is defined in the glossary of the Framework as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that in either case does not contribute to any of the purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143.

The site is an undeveloped parcel of land and would not, therefore, be regarded as previously developed land. Purpose (a), of paragraph 143, is to check the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas; purpose (b) is to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; and purpose (d) is to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. The appeal site is relatively small and is located outside of a built-up area and therefore does not strongly contribute to checking the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas. Nor does the site prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another and does not contribute to preserving the setting and special character of historic towns. On this basis, the appeal site does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes (a), (b) or (d) and would comply with criteria a) of Paragraph 155 of the Framework and would be regarded as Grey Belt Land.

Criteria b) of Paragraph 155 of the Framework is where there is a demonstrable unmet need for the development proposed. The Council’s current housing land supply falls below the required 5 years at 4.04 years. Consequently, there is a demonstrable unmet need for housing, and the proposal would comply with criteria b).

Criteria c) requires that the development should be in a sustainable location.

Fifield has limited goods and services provision within the village. The appeal site is located on [site address] , a [address], which at this location has no footpaths, cycleways, or streetlights. A footpath is available, around 60m from the site, on the opposite side of [site address] . The nearest bus stop is also located on the opposite side of the road, around 160m from the site. Whilst the bus stop has a shelter, it is set within the hedge, has little natural surveillance other than road users and is not covered by street lighting.

The bus stop serves the number 37 bus which, based on the evidence before me, provides a one-way circular route between [name] and Windsor. The evidence indicates an hourly service to Windsor but does not detail whether the service and frequency of service apply at evenings and weekends. The nearest train station is over 5km from the appeal site.

Whilst sustainable transport choices vary between urban and rural areas in accordance with Paragraph 110 of the Framework, the choice of sustainable means of transport to access the site is limited and the occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be highly dependent on the use of a private vehicle to access the goods and services required. Whilst there appears to be a regular bus service available to the future occupiers, this option is unlikely to be attractive due to the lack of footpath, street lighting, needing to cross a 40mph road with no formal crossing point and lack of natural surveillance of the bus stop.

As a result, the proposed development could not achieve safe and suitable access to the site for all users and the sustainable mode of transport available would not be prioritised. Consequently, the site would not be a sustainable location, and the Framework Paragraph 155 exception would not apply. Accordingly, the proposal would not meet all the criteria outlined within Paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Consequently, the proposed development does not meet any of the exceptions listed in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework.

The development would therefore be inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would result in moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Policy SP2 of the BLP requires all proposed development to demonstrate how they have been designed to incorporate measures to adapt to, and mitigate, climate change. This also includes a list of measures that are required to be incorporated. The accompanying Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (July 2024) (SPD) identifies that applications should be supported by a Sustainability and [name], as required by the Council’s local validation checklist, and details the specifics required to be within the Statement. This includes, amongst other things, a detailed energy assessment.

The detailed energy assessment requires the submission of several energy and carbon dioxide calculations to show both on-site reductions and if necessary, the remainder of carbon emissions should be achieved via a carbon offset payment to meet net zero carbon.

No evidence is before me regarding how the development would comply with Policy SP2 of the BLP and the accompanying SPD. I note that the appellant agrees to make a legal agreement regarding carbon offset. However, without a Sustainability and [name] including a detailed energy assessment, I am unable to ascertain whether the required measures have been adequately incorporated into the design and no assessment has been undertaken of the proposed development and if and by what quantity, carbon off set is required.

Consequently, and with no legal mechanism before me to secure any carbon off set that may be required, the proposed development fails to accord with Policies SP2 and EP1 of the BLP. The proposal would also fail to comply with the accompanying SPD. These policies seek, amongst other things, for development proposals to conserve and enhance environmental quality whilst adapting to and mitigating climate change.

The proposed development includes one dwelling for the purposes of self-build. The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (the SBCH Act) requires local planning authorities to establish and publicise a register of those who are seeking to acquire serviced plots of land in the authority's area for their own self-build and custom housebuilding. Section 2A, of the SBCH Act, requires a local authority to grant sufficient self-build permissions to be in keeping with local need as set out on the self-build or custom housing register. Whilst no up-to-date figures are provided regarding the supply and demand for self-build plots within the district, the Council acknowledges that it is currently falling short of its obligations and that the demand for self-build housing will need to be met in part through windfall sites, including sites within the Green Belt.

Paragraph 73(b), of the Framework, supports small sites to come forward for self-build and custom-build housing. The Framework also supports the delivery of a variety of land coming forward to meet the needs of groups with specific housing requirements including for those people wishing to commission or build their own homes.

The appeal proposal would deliver an additional self-build dwelling and would therefore reduce the existing shortfall of self-build plots in the Borough. This is undoubtedly a benefit of the appeal scheme, which carries weight in support of the proposal. However, the housing shortfall is modest, and the proposed development would provide only a single plot. Therefore, its contribution would be small. Consequently, I attach moderate weight to this benefit.

I acknowledge that the development is to provide suitable accommodation to meet the personal needs of the ageing owners of the appeal site. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate there are exceptional personal needs that could only be met by the proposed development and not by other, potentially less harmful, means. There is also limited evidence before me regarding input into the design of the dwelling, confirmation of the appellant’s inclusion on the Council’s self-build register and how the proposal qualifies as a self or custom build dwelling.

Furthermore, no legal mechanism is before me to secure the proposed dwelling and its subsequent occupation as self-build. Whilst both the appellant and the Council have suggested conditions for this purpose, I am not satisfied that a planning condition would provide an effective or enforceable mechanism for controlling future occupancy. Consequently, I attach limited weight to these matters.

[name] (BNG) is required under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). Under the statutory framework for BNG, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met. One of the exemptions from BNG is that the development if for self-build housing. However, in the absence of a planning obligation to secure the development as a self-build dwelling, the proposed development would be subject to BNG.

An ecological survey has been undertaken which notes the potential for [name] on the appeal site and acknowledges the requirement for native planting and integrated bird and bat boxes. An area to the rear of the proposed dwelling, as shown on drawing 1250/1A, would also be safeguarded for a biodiversity and habitat creation and enhancement area. However, the required BNG matrix and supporting information is not before me and in accordance with Schedule 7A, the information is required for determination of the planning application/appeal. Accordingly, there is insufficient information before me regarding BNG and the biodiversity gain objective would not be met.

Subsequently, the proposal also fails to accord with Policy NR2 of the BLP which requires development to demonstrate how they maintain, protect, and enhance the biodiversity of the application site.

The proposal would deliver one dwelling which is proposed as a self-build within a District where a 4.04-year housing land supply is in existence, which falls below the level of supply required by national policy and a shortfall of self-build plots exists. The dwelling would make a modest contribution to the Council’s housing land supply and thus would contribute to the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. Given the current housing land supply position, the benefits of delivery of even one new home which would be a self-build dwelling are increased. Overall, this benefit attracts moderate weight.

The appeal scheme would also provide construction jobs and some local investment during its build out, as well as longer term expenditure in the local economy. Additional landscaping on site would also provide some biodiversity enhancement. However, I attach limited weight to each of these benefits considering the scale of development proposed and the modest size of the site in question.

The appeal site lies within 2 kilometres of the Windsor Forest and Great Park Special Area of Conservation, which is a European site as defined by The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to undertake an appropriate assessment.

In relation to the proposal, it has been identified that the dwelling is for a disabled family member so that single storey living can be obtained. I must take it that a refusal of permission for the new dwelling would reduce their ability to conduct normal day-to-day activities within the home. However, since the appellant has not shown that the dwelling is no larger than necessary and designed for this specific purpose, I only attach moderate weight to the appellant’s need for the dwelling as a consideration in favour of a grant of permission.

Paragraphs 153 and 154 of the Framework set out the general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt. They explain that such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I have concluded that the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development that would, by definition, harm the Green Belt. I have also concluded that the appeal scheme would result in moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

Overall, when taken together and in the context of a new dwelling, the benefits of the development referred to above attract only moderate weight in favour of the proposal. As such, the harm to the Green Belt is not clearly outweighed by the other considerations identified and therefore the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. Accordingly, the proposal fails to adhere to the local and national Green Belt policies I have already outlined.

Consequently, the new dwelling would be contrary to Policy QP5 of the BLP as far as it is consistent with the Framework, which together require, amongst other things, for the Green Belt and its openness to be protected from inappropriate development.

On consideration of the Council’s five year housing land supply position at 4.04 years and that the proposal relates to the provision of housing, paragraph 11(d) (i) of the Framework indicates that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be engaged unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework lists Green Belt as an asset of particular importance.

I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. This finding provides a strong reason for refusing planning permission. I have also found that whilst a self-build new dwelling is proposed, this would only moderately increase housing supply and therefore attracts only moderate weight in favour of the proposal. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, paragraph 11 (d) (ii) regarding the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not engaged in this instance.

The proposal also fails to provide sufficient information regarding how it would meet and secure the requirements and commitments towards climate change and as no mechanism is before me to secure the development as self-build, it also fails to meet the requirements of [name]. These weigh further against the proposal.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under the Equality Act 2010. Dismissing this appeal could reduce the ability of the intended future occupiers of the new dwelling to conduct normal day-to-day activities within the home. The substantial harm caused by the appeal development outweighs its benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic (which includes disabilities), and persons who do not. Therefore, dismissing this appeal would, based on the evidence before me, be proportionate in this instance when balanced against the well-established and legitimate planning purposes of national and local planning policies.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework and the very special circumstances test therein, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.