Appeal 6005450

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 2 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 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. 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 main issue in this appeal is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development proposed, with particular reference to;  the spatial strategy for the district; and,  the [site address] Conservation Area and the Cotswold National Landscape.

[name].15 and CS.16 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy ([name]), together with Policies H2–H4 of the [site address] Neighbourhood 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] Development Plan 2011–2031 (the NDP), collectively establish the spatial strategy for the area, directing new development towards the most sustainable locations. These policies define Built-Up Area Boundaries (BUABs), within which new residential development is generally supported. Land located outside of a BUAB, as in this case, is treated as open countryside for the purposes of Core Strategy Policy AS.10. This policy seeks to strictly control new housing development in such locations, limiting it to specific exceptions, such as the conversion of redundant or disused buildings or replacement dwellings. There is no dispute between the parties that the proposal does not fall within any of the identified exceptions for development in the countryside.

Accordingly, I find that the site is not suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development proposed, with reference to the spatial strategy for the district. It therefore conflicts with [name].15, CS.16 and AS.10 of the [name] along with [name] H2, H3 and H4, the objectives of which are set out above.

The appeal site lies within the Cotswolds National Landscape (National Landscape) and the [site address] Conservation Area (Conservation Area). The surrounding landscape is characterised by a patchwork of gently undulating landform enclosed by hedgerows and traditional stone walls. Settlements within this part of the National Landscape are sparsely distributed, reinforcing its strongly rural character. The built form of these settlements including [site address] exhibit a high standard of architectural quality and a strong sense of cohesion, having evolved in the distinctive Cotswold vernacular. Collectively, these elements contribute to the special qualities and scenic beauty of the designated landscape. The statutory duty at section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) provides that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes.

The built form within the Conservation Area is varied, ranging from small, modest cottages located close to the roadside, to larger, robust yet simple farmhouses with associated outbuildings, as well as several grand houses set within generous, well-maintained grounds. The significance of the Conservation Area is derived in part from its rural setting and the traditional character and appearance of the built form, including the widespread use of Cotswold limestone for external walls and boundary treatments. This consistent use of local materials creates a strong and cohesive visual character, resulting in a pleasing and distinctly rustic appearance. The surrounding patchwork of countryside, combined with the sparse pattern of development and an abundance of trees and hedgerows, provides an attractive and distinctly rural context to the Conservation Area.

The appeal site is situated between residential development on either side and comprises an undeveloped, largely overgrown parcel of land. It is identified as a ‘Green Finger’ under Policy E2 of the NDP and is described within the Conservation Area Appraisal as a ‘scrub woodland area’. While the designation is not statutory, the site is recognised as an important component of the village’s character, providing a transitional link between the built form and the surrounding countryside. The site helps to break up the built form in this part of [site address] and facilitates views from the village towards the countryside to the east, as well as glimpses back into the settlement from its rural edge. In reinforcing the village’s strong relationship with its surrounding landscape, the site makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area and to the landscape quality and scenic beauty of the National Landscape. While the neighbouring gardens extend further into the countryside, they do not materially affect the rear site boundary and thus do not compromise the important views or negatively alter the relationship between the appeal site and its surroundings.

The proposed dwelling would be experienced in the context of neighbouring built form, and the existing landscaping, including protected trees would be retained where possible. Further, the design of any future dwelling could reflect the local vernacular and would be considered at technical details consent stage. Nevertheless, the consequential introduction of substantial built form, associated areas of hardstanding and inevitable domestic paraphernalia would result in an unacceptable degree of urbanisation and encroachment into the countryside. In contrast to the previous appeal, which related to a materially smaller site area, the current proposal would significantly undermine the site’s ‘Green Finger’ function. This would arise from the increased extent of built form across the entirety of the site, which would unacceptably disrupt key views both into and out of the village.

The urbanising effects of the proposal would erode the rural character of the Conservation Area, harming the heritage significance. Given the limited scale of the development, the harm to the identified heritage asset would be on the lower end of less than substantial but nonetheless of considerable importance and weight. It would also diminish the site’s contribution to the wider landscape and would thus neither conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape.

Accordingly, I find that the site would not be suitable for residential development having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development proposed, with particular reference to the Conservation Area and the National Landscape. It therefore conflicts with [name].9, CS.11, and AS.10 of the [name] and Policy E2 of the NDP. Amongst other aspects, these policies collectively seek to protect and enhance historic assets that contribute to the character and identity of the district and prevent harm to the landscape quality and scenic value of the National Landscape.

Council Members are not obliged to follow Officer recommendations, provided that clear and robust planning reasons are given for reaching an alternative decision. The Council’s reasons are clearly set out within their Statement of Case and are consistent with previous decisions. The evidence therefore does not suggest that the departure from officer advice was unreasonable.

The appellant refers to a number of schemes which they assert are comparable to the appeal proposal. However, limited case-specific detail has been submitted and therefore I am unable to make meaningful comparisons. That said, these schemes are not located within [site address] and therefore do not inform the context of the appeal site which is an important consideration here. Likewise, the [address] appeal was a significantly larger residential development and therefore does not compare to the scheme before me. As such, these decisions do not lead me to reach a different conclusion. The site is not within an area at risk of flooding. This however is a neutral factor and does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The appeal proposal would fail to preserve the significance of the Conservation Area. Given the limited scale of the development, I find the harm to be at the lower end of less than substantial in this instance. Nevertheless, this attracts great weight.

The evidence before me indicates that the Council is currently able to demonstrate only a 2.21-year housing land supply, representing a significant shortfall. The appellant submits that the scheme would make use of an underutilised site and would deliver a single additional dwelling, which could be brought forward within a relatively short timeframe. Future occupiers would also benefit from access to a range of local services and facilities within [site address] , including a primary school, church, village hall, public house, and convenience store. While these factors weigh in favour of the development, the provision of one dwelling would make only a very modest contribution towards addressing both the district’s housing shortfall and the unmet housing need arising from the [name] area.

Similarly, although there would be some economic benefits associated with the construction phase and the day-to-day expenditure of future occupants, these would be limited given the small scale of the proposal and therefore attract only limited weight. In respect of biodiversity, although the scheme indicates a potential net gain in line with the statutory requirement, the true extent of this benefit cannot be realised at this stage. As such, this benefit is uncertain and attracts only limited weight in the overall planning balance.

Accordingly, these public benefits do not provide clear and convincing justification for the harm to the asset involved and are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified. Given the above, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, paragraph 210 of the Framework and would conflict with [name] policy CS.8 which seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment.

As the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land, paragraph 11d) of the Framework applies. However, the urbanising effects of the proposal would significantly erode the rural character of the Conservation Area and in turn fail to conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape. The harm identified in respect of these designations provide a strong reason for refusing permission. Paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework therefore does not apply. 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. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.