Appeal 6005434

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 technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

An applicant can apply for permission in principle for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission has been sought for a minimum of five dwellings and a maximum of nine.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development, with particular regard to: • whether the appeal site is grey belt and 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 proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, 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 Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, stating that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework does however outline several exceptions to inappropriate development at paragraphs 154 and 155.

It is not suggested that the proposal would meet any of the exceptions to inappropriate development set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework. Based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to find otherwise. However, paragraph 155 of the Framework now provides an additional exception in relation to grey belt land.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework explains that the development of homes in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all the relevant criteria apply. There is no dispute between the main parties that the proposal would utilise grey belt land. There is also agreement that it would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. I agree on both counts.

In relation to a demonstrable unmet need, footnote 56 of the Framework clarifies that, in relation to housing, this includes a lack of a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (‘5YHLS’). The evidence indicates, and it is not disputed, that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5YHLS, and accordingly, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed.

Criterion c. of paragraph 155 of the Framework relates to development being within a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. Paragraph 115 of the Framework in particular outlines that sustainable transport modes should be prioritised. Whether locations are sustainable should be determined in light of local context and site or development-specific considerations, taking into account opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions.

The appeal site represents an open parcel of land in the [name] which has been characterised as an unserviced settlement in the Basildon Borough Settlement Hierarchy Review April 2024. Development would be accessed from [site address] , which is a single width carriageway with no footways, cycleways or street lamps at the point of the appeal site.

The Transport Note (TN) submitted to support the application details that recorded traffic volumes and mean speeds, would create conditions consistent with low-conflict pedestrian-vehicle interactions. However, due to the presence of roadside hedges, there are little to no meaningful verges which would offer respite for pedestrians as cars pass. The data within the TN confirms that, whilst most recorded vehicles adhere to the 30mph speed limit, there are still notable occurrences where vehicles recorded greater speeds. The use of the road for walking would therefore be an unattractive prospect for future occupiers.

The nearest bus stop to the appeal site is presented as being almost a kilometre away. Noting the above characteristics of the road, I find it highly unlikely that proposed occupiers would favour walking to the bus stop to access its associated services.

It is stated that [site address] is well-used by cyclists, connecting to the national cycle network within a 3km distance, which in turn connects the site to larger settlements with associated services and facilities, including Billericay and Basildon. Even if I were able to secure the intention for future occupiers to be provided with e-bikes, the overall situation of the appeal site would in my view still discourage cycling for all but very experienced cyclists, particularly at night or in inclement weather.

Taking the above into account, the appeal site cannot be said to have access to a genuine choice of transport modes. It is likely, therefore, that the private car would perform a significant role in enabling any future occupiers of the proposal to access facilities and services.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal decision in Worcester1, where the Inspector made findings in relation to access to services and facilities for a permission in principle for up to five dwellings. Other than the decision itself, there is little evidence before me in relation to this case. For example, I have not been provided with a site location plan. It is therefore difficult for me to consider the circumstances of that decision in detail. It does not appear to relate to land within the Green Belt. Moreover, the Inspector refers in their decision to facilities including a primary school, village hall, church and public house.

[name] accept that there are similarities to the appeal proposal before me insofar as neither received a formal highway objection, I cannot be certain that the circumstances of it are entirely comparable. Consequently, I am satisfied that my own conclusion would not represent inconsistency, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case which is before me.

I am mindful of the rural context of the appeal site, and the advice set out at paragraph 110 of the Framework, which acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. However, the appeal site would not be easily accessible by sustainable means for all, and given the nature of [address], nor would safe access to the development be provided for all users, as advised at paragraph 115 of the Framework.

I therefore find that the proposal would not be in a sustainable location for the purposes of paragraph 155(c) of the Framework. Given that this means that all of the criteria of paragraph 155 of the Framework cannot be met, it is not necessary for me to go on to consider paragraph 155(d) of the Framework which relates to the ‘[name].

The proposal would not comprise an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of paragraph 155 of the Framework. As no other exemptions apply in this case, I conclude that it would comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The appeal site is therefore not suitable for 1 Appeal Ref: APP/J1860/W/24/3354156 decision dated 24 June 2025 residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The Framework sets out 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. PPG provides advice on the factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt, with openness being capable of having both spatial and visual aspects.

The appeal site is undeveloped and has a high degree of openness both in visual and spatial terms. Whilst the overall scale and design of the proposed dwellings are matters which would fall to be considered at the technical details stage, it is nevertheless inevitable that the construction of between five and nine dwellings, which would have associated gardens, residential paraphernalia and parking areas, in a field which is currently absent of development, would be harmful to openness.

The proposal would contribute to the Council’s housing supply through the delivery of up to nine additional dwellings, which would make an efficient use of the land. I note that the Framework outlines support for bringing forward small and medium sized sites, acknowledging that they can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirements of an area. I have given the benefits associated with housing delivery moderate weight.

Economic and social benefits would also arise from the proposal both during construction and in the longer term, following occupation. Other benefits may also accrue, however as consideration of detailed design would only occur at the technical details consent stage, these are not apparent from the evidence before me, nor could they be adequately secured at this stage such that they could be afforded meaningful weight.

The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which would also cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. I attach substantial weight to the associated Green Belt harm.

Very special circumstances 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. Taken together, the other considerations carry considerable weight. Nevertheless, I find that the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm is not clearly outweighed by other considerations in this case. Therefore, the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development do not exist.

The appeal site is within the zone of influence for the [name] and [name]. [name] found the appeal scheme to be acceptable in all other regards it would have been necessary for me to examine this matter in further detail. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, no further consideration is required.

I understand that there was a previous application on the appeal site (albeit across a larger site area) for outline permission for up to 22 dwellings. Notwithstanding that I do not have the full details of this case, it appears that it was also refused on the basis of conflict with Green Belt policy.

Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged as the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5YHLS, with the evidence indicating a position of around 1.96 years supply. In such circumstances, this states that development should be approved unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development. In this appeal, the application of the Framework’s Green Belt policies provides a strong reason to refuse the development.

The proposal does not explicitly conflict with the development plan. However, material considerations, namely the provisions of the Framework in relation to the Green Belt, dictate that the appeal should be dismissed.