Appeal 6005392

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant made an application for an award of costs against Bedford Borough Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that permission in principle 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 stage (technical details consent) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. Planning permission does not exist unless both the permission in principle and the technical details consent are approved. 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 technical details consent application, if permission in principle is granted.

The main issues are:

the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, and

the effect of the proposed development on trees, including those protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

The appeal site comprises a largely open field albeit with some dilapidated structures towards the north east corner. It is set to the rear of houses addressing [address] and fringed by a mixture of trees, hedges and post and rail fencing. The site is partly surrounded by existing development along [address] and a variety of other structures along the eastern and western boundaries. More southerly parts of the site are open to the countryside beyond although views out are restricted by the generally quite mature vegetation along these boundaries. The northern part of the site adjoins the Settlement Policy Area (SPA) and part of the site, where the access would be formed, is within the SPA. I note that no objections have been expressed to the elements of the scheme within the SPA.

The majority of the appeal site is located within the countryside wherein, in accordance with policy 7S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (BLP), development will be permitted if it is appropriate in the countryside and in accordance with policies 65 to 68 (inclusive) of the BLP or in accordance with a made neighbourhood development plan. The proposal does not meet any of the criteria of policies 65 to 68 and nor is it allocated as a housing site in the Willington Neighbourhood Development Plan (WNDP). The other criteria set out in policy 7S (at vi. to ix. and x.) are not met and have not been advanced as arguments by the appellant so I have not gone on to consider these further.

The proposal would extend the built form of the village of Willington into the countryside and beyond the SPA. It would introduce a form of urbanising development that would fail to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Therefore, I conclude that the location, land use and the amount of development proposed would be harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside and it therefore conflicts with policy 7S (xi), 28S (i and ii), 29 (i and ii) and 30 (i and ii) of the BLP and policy W1A of the WNDP.

I accept that the objectives of the WNDP include reference to ensure new housing being appropriate in scale and within or adjacent to the settlement boundary. This, however, does not equate to support for the proposal as the site is not allocated for housing and this is reflected in the development plan. Equally, that the northern area of the site is part within and/or adjoins the SPA does not equate to support for the proposal overall. Indeed, such an argument could be commonly aired for many other similar scenarios and, if these were permitted and repeated, such developments, in cumulation, would then undermine the objectives of the WNDP.

The appellant has made reference to other decisions at [address], Willington and [address], Clapham1 that were granted permission in principle by the Council. I do not have full details of these cases however, from what I can establish, these sites are both more contained and surrounded on two or more sides by existing development. I am not obliged to follow the Council’s previous findings and have considered the proposal on its own merits. Nevertheless, there is a distinct difference between the sites as there is an advancement of the built form into the countryside in this proposal. 1 Council refs: 25/00247/PIP & 25/02051/PIP

The site, especially along the boundaries, is peppered with a variety of trees and many of these are protected by a Tree Preservation Order2 (TPO). Due to the layout of the site and plot sizes, there is the possibility that new development could be within the root protection areas of many of these trees and thus there is the potential for harm to, or indeed loss of, these trees. Indeed, I do not dispute the Council’s conclusions in this regard.

Nevertheless, I must be mindful that this application is for permission in principle and the precise plot layout, arrangement of buildings, servicing and infrastructure is for later consideration as part of any technical details consent. In this context and considering that the trees are arranged towards the boundaries of the site, it would likely be quite feasible to construct nine dwellings and access road without impacting upon these trees.

As such, I am unable to find reason for objection due to the impact upon the trees at this stage of the process. Were permission in principle to be granted, this would be an important consideration at technical details consent stage, but I am unable to find cause for concern here. Therefore, in this regard, I conclude that the proposal would comply with policies 37 and 39 of the BLP insofar as the proposal could retain trees of high amenity and environmental value.

The Council accepts it cannot demonstrate a deliverable five-year supply of housing land. The provisions of paragraph 11 d) ii are therefore engaged. This means, in summary, granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Paragraph 14 of the Framework sets out that where the presumption (at paragraph 11 d)) applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The proposal has been put forward as [name] and [name] (SBCH), and I must attach weight to this as a benefit. The Council is not meeting its requirement to provide SBCH arising in this base period however it is not clear from the evidence what the extent of this shortfall is. This moderates the weight I can attribute to this matter but, even so, it is a factor to be weighed into the balance.

The supply of new dwellings, in particular SBCH, along with other factors including (inter alia) to the local construction industry whilst the scheme is being built and increased custom to local businesses due to pollution rise, is a benefit of the proposal. However, I am unable to conclude that these outweigh the harm caused to the countryside and character and appearance of the area as it would not contribute to securing well-designed places. This is particularly the case here, considering paragraph 14 of the Framework, as the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan within the last five years and contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement. This adds further weight to the refusal of permission in principle. 2 Bedford Borough Council Tree Preservation Order No. 2 of 2021

The site is located near to [name] which is a grade II listed building that addresses [address]. The significance of this building is its architectural composition and relevance to the historic development of the area. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Most of the site is set well away from this heritage asset and screened by intervening, more modern development, such that there would be negligible impact upon its setting from new homes. The new access onto [address] may have to be considered with care, however this would be a matter for the technical details consent stage. Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the heritage asset.

My attention has also been drawn to other listed buildings in the area. These include the Mill at [address], The Timbers and The Old Forge. These heritage assets are set further away from the site and are unlikely to be in visual range of even the sites access. Thus, I find my conclusions in relation to [name] equally apply to these listed buildings for the same reasons.

The location, land use and the amount of development proposed would be detrimental to the countryside character and appearance of the site and area. [name] have recognised that the development could have an adverse impact on protected trees, I have concluded that this is a matter for the technical details consent stage.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is dismissed.