Appeal 6005409

The appeal is dismissed.

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:

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,

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

if the proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, 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 located within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined by policy SP4 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2021 (CBLP). This policy sets out that there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Development proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed in accordance with government guidance. For the purposes of this appeal, I have taken this to mean Section 13 of the Framework and related parts of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

The Framework explains at paragraph 142 that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 154 explains that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of certain exceptions apply. In this instance, the appellant has not advanced any arguments in relation to the development complying with any of the criteria under paragraph 154. In this regard, I find that the proposal does not fit into any of the criteria under this paragraph.

However, the appellant has advanced the proposal under paragraph 155 of the Framework. This is where the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate subject to the criteria listed at paragraphs 155 a. to d.

Paragraph 155 a. is where development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. Grey belt is defined at Annex 2 of the Framework as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes a), b), or d) in paragraph 143. ‘Grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

The Council suggests that Toddington is a large built-up area and thus this proposal would not meet the test at paragraph 143 a) of the Framework insofar as it would not check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. Policy SP7 of the CBLP sets out a list of settlements and distinguishes between Major and [name] and Large and [name]. Toddington is listed as a [name].

I find there is some tension here as Toddington is clearly not a particularly expansive settlement and the PPG notes that villages should not be considered large built-up areas. Moreover, the appellant highlights that the Council’s Green Belt Study (2018) (GBS) identified that the parcel makes no significant contribution to purposes under paragraph 143 a). It is important to note that this study was undertaken prior to the most recent version of the Framework and related parts of the PPG. The purpose of this study was to consider land with the intent of releasing suitable parcels in the forthcoming development plan, a document that has been adopted in the intervening period.

Moreover, it was produced prior to the most recent versions of the Framework and was undertaken under the clear assumption, at that time, that Toddington was not regarded as a large built-up area. This is reflected in the site assessment for parcel NLP069 where it is stated that “development in this area would be associated with Toddington, and not the large, built-up area of Luton/Dunstable/ [name] to the south.”

Toddington benefits from a school, GP surgery, community centre, shops, church and pub and this is a level of services is in excess of what would often be expected from a village. It is well connected to the motorway network and close to the train station at Harlington, albeit the latter is beyond a reasonable walking distance. Equally, it is not set out in the CBLP as being a village. However, the CBLP and the definitions of settlement sizes also pre-date the current Framework and PPG.

My attention has been drawn to a recent decision at [address], [address], Harlington1 where the Inspector found it reasonable to conclude that Harlington is a large built-up area. This decision was made under the current iteration of the Framework and PPG. Harlington is a settlement of comparable size to Toddington, it is also listed as a [name] in the CBLP. The only substantive difference, for the purposes of this decision, between the two appears to be that Harlington benefits from a train station.

As such, whilst I do find the arguments here are finely balanced; the more recent evidence suggests that [name] are regarded as being large built-up areas. This means that the conclusions of the GBS and its findings that this parcel of land makes no contribution under paragraph 143 a) must carry less weight than the more recent policy, guidance and decisions contained in the Framework, PPG and having regard to the recent appeal decision at [address]. Indeed, the provisions of SP4 of the CBLP explicitly state that “proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed in accordance with government guidance contained in the NPPF and NPPG” and this reflects the evolving status of this national guidance. Therefore, weighing the above matters together, I conclude that Toddington should be regarded as a large built-up area.

Turning to the effects of this proposal; the existing site sits at the edge of Toddington, it does not follow an established public road with other development along it, it adjoins open land to all sides and is exposed to the countryside to the north and east. Thus, it strongly contributes to the purpose of the Green Belt under paragraph 143 a). This is because the site is free of existing development, it is adjacent to a large built-up area and if developed, it would result in an incongruous extended finger of development, and this directly conflicts with the PPG criteria for establishing a strong contribution under paragraph 143 a).

It follows that the appeal site positively contributes to purposes set out under paragraph 143 a) and therefore does not fall within the definition of grey belt. It is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. [name] have found this conflict it is not necessary for me to consider the implications of the proposal considering paragraphs 155 b. and c. The development is too small to fall within the ambit of the [name] and thus paragraphs 155d. and 156 to 159 do not apply.

The location, land use and the amount of development proposed therefore fails to comply with policy SP4 of the CBLP and Framework as it would be a form of inappropriate development. 1 APP/P0240/W/24/3355615

The existing site comprises a broadly open parcel of land albeit with clusters of trees and hedges along many boundaries and on nearby adjoining pieces of land. It is set on the edge of the village where the pattern of development largely follows the line of [site address] . However, there are examples of more dispersed buildings and uses in reasonable proximity and this includes a few scatted, larger homes and the recent barn conversions to the west. Indeed, the access drive to the latter traverses the appeal site.

The site is set on a gently sloping hillside and is exposed to longer range views beyond. It is visible, albeit not prominent, from [site address] .

The development of five dwellings would invariably have an effect on this character and would not have regard to the pattern or grain of development in the locality. It would appear as an incongruous addition to the settlement that would not relate well to its established layout. This would be visible and noticeable in both long and short range views and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal is for permission in principle only and thus only matters of location, land use and the amount of development are open for consideration. Even so, I am not persuaded that the development of five dwellings on this site could be constructed without harm to the character and appearance of the area. This is due to its sensitive location at the edge of the settlement and with long range views towards it.

As such, I conclude that the location, land use and the amount of development would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and the proposal therefore conflicts with policies HQ1 and EE5 of the CBLP and Framework. This is insofar as the proposal would not be the highest possible quality and respond positively to its context.

It has been put to me that the proposal would provide social and economic benefits by providing new residential development. The Council accepts it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land. However, paragraph 153 of the Framework states that substantial weight [should be] given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Footnote 55 of the Framework explains that this is other than in the case of development on previously developed land or grey belt land, where development is not inappropriate.

However, I have found that the site is not grey belt land and is inappropriate development and, therefore, the effect on the Green Belt is a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Accordingly, the provisions of paragraph 11 d) i are engaged.

The proposal also incorporates junction improvements, but I have no evidence to suggest the existing junction is substandard. Therefore, any junction improvements could only be regarded as a neutral consideration. Likewise, landscape enhancements have been put forward as a benefit, but I do not find that this would outweigh the harm caused to the character and appearance of the area.

As such, these factors do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and deleterious effect on the character and appearance of the area.

In reaching my conclusions here, I have been mindful of the proximity of the site to Toddington Conservation Area and the listed [address]. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of heritage assets. However, I note that there is no dispute between the parties that there will not be an adverse effect on either of these designated assets. Given the separation distance and context of these heritage assets, I agree, and am satisfied that there would be no adverse effects.

I have been mindful of the comments of the [name] in relation to in ground heritage assets. However, as this proposal is for permission in principle, and in any case, is to be dismissed; this is a matter which can be reserved for the technical details consent stage.

The proposal is a form of inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The location, land use and the amount of development proposed 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.