Appeal 6005478

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that permission in principle is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. This has 2 stages: the first stage (permission in principle) establishes whether a site is suitable in principle and the second (technical details consent) assesses detailed development proposals. 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 Council has not taken issue with the proposed residential land use or number of dwellings of the proposal before me.

I am informed that the Council is currently engaging on a new Local Plan. Part of this would evidently see [name] deleted from the green belt in order to free up land for development of housing. I have limited details on this before me, although I understand that the plan is at a very early stage. While it may signify the direction of travel, it could be subject to changes, and its final form is not yet known. As the appellant agrees, this is worthy of little weight in the determination of this appeal at this stage.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the appeal site is suitable in principle for residential development, having particular regard to its location in the green belt and the following matters: • Whether or not the proposal would constitute inappropriate development. • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the green belt. • Whether any harm to the green belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed developments.

Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) list exceptions to the presumption against development in the green belt. Of relevance to the proposal is the exception given in paragraph 154(e) which relates to limited infilling in villages.

Whether a proposal is ‘limited’, ‘infilling’ or in a ‘village’ is a matter for the decision maker based on the evidence given none of these terms are defined in the Framework. The Council advises that [name] is identified as a town rather than a village in its Green Belt Assessment (2025). I note that the appellant is not pursuing this exception. As such, I see no reason to disagree based on the evidence before me and as the appeal site is not within a village, it cannot meet this exception.

However, I note the Council accept that the appeal site could be considered to be grey belt land as per the definition in the glossary of the Framework. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree. The application was therefore also assessed against paragraph 155(c) of the Framework, which would require the proposal to be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework.

Paragraph 110 of the Framework seeks to actively manage patterns of growth in support of the objectives given in paragraph 109. As the appellant points out, the Council does not assess the proposal against paragraph 110 in either the committee report or the decision notice. Whether or not this is because it considers the proposal to not be significant is unclear. However, paragraph 110 seeks to limit the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. To my mind these are important considerations in promoting sustainable transport, which is the overarching aim of section 9 of the Framework.

Sections (a) and (b) of paragraph 115 seek to ensure sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location; and that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. Sections (c) and (d) are not considered relevant to this scheme given it is concerned only with matters of principle.

I have had regard to the plan submitted with the appeal which shows a number of bus stops, shops, pubs, restaurants and other services and facilities located within the settlement to the west. These are concentrated along [address] (A53). However, I observed that [address] was a steep, narrow lane without street lighting or footpaths, as were many of the routes leading to the appeal site from [address]. This would therefore be an undesirable route to walk or cycle to bus stops or nearby services and facilities. The adjacent public right of way to the east would be even less likely to offer a suitable route given it was unsurfaced and through a woodland strip. In inclement weather conditions and hours of darkness this would not be a realistic option for many people, including those with small children or people walking alone.

As such, I share the concern of the Council that despite existing dwellings in the area, sustainable transport modes are unlikely to be prioritised by residents in any future development of 3-6 dwellings. Instead, it seems highly likely that private vehicle use would increase, contrary to the aims of paragraph 115 of the Framework.

I have had regard to the suggestions of the appellant in their Transport Planning Statement1. This includes a footpath along the road. However, given the width of the road this appears unlikely to be a suitable solution. Charging for electric vehicles would be dependent on future occupants driving such vehicles, otherwise it would not contribute much to the goals of this exception. Travel packs for future residents would be unlikely to be effective given the undesirable walking or cycling routes suggested.

I am informed that there are no recorded accidents in the location. Given the characteristics of the roads, I agree that vehicle speeds are likely to be low. While collision risk involving vehicles and pedestrians may be lower as a result, and therefore not unsafe, this does not make the access suitable with respect to sustainable transport modes. To my mind future residents are unlikely to walk or cycle to bus stops or frequent local services based on the circumstances of the adjacent roads and rights of way, rather than feeling unsafe from risk of collision.

My attention is drawn to planning applications approved by the Council and an appeal decision made on a nearby site2. However, these seem to be highlighted as they concern matters of highway safety rather than the prioritisation of sustainable transport. There is also a suggestion that the highway could be widened to provide a passing place as well as a verge added in the vicinity. However, there is little before me to indicate that this is feasible, while the proposal considers matters of principle only. As such, these are not directly relevant to the proposal before me, and I have drawn my own conclusions based on the evidence as presented.

Based on the foregoing, the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the green belt. This would be contrary to paragraphs 154(e) and 155 of the Framework.

Inevitably, the proposal to erect 3-6 dwellings would cause a loss of openness spatially caused by the houses themselves as well as the necessary hard surfacing. The site as existing is largely closed from public view along [address] due to mature boundary hedging although it can be glimpsed from here as well as along the public right of way to the east. However, access from the road would require the site is opened up which would increase its impact visually. Therefore, while localised, the harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt would be significant.

Accordingly, the proposal would not preserve the openness of the green belt contrary to paragraph 142 of the Framework. 1 [name] – February 2026. 2 Appeal Ref: APP/B3438/W/22/3292144

There is no dispute between the main parties that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. This figure is put at just over 4 years by the appellant, and I see no reason to dispute it. I am therefore taken to paragraph 11(d) of the Framework, which advises that where policies which are most important for determining the application are deemed to be out-of-date, for decision-taking this means granting permission unless the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed.

However, footnote 7 of paragraph 11(d) includes green belt land as an asset of particular importance. This would provide a strong reason for refusal of the development proposed. With the above in mind, although the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at paragraph 11 of the Framework does not apply.

Even if I were to consider the proposal in light of the Council’s housing supply position, the contribution of 3-6 dwellings would make a limited contribution to its targets in this respect. Further limited economic benefits would be accrued through the building process to a construction company. However, these benefits would not outweigh the substantial weight I must give to harm to the green belt.

I understand that pre-application advice was previously given by the Council which concluded the principle was likely to be acceptable, albeit with further justification on some matters required. [name] understand the appellant’s frustration, and advice prior to the submission of a planning application is a useful approach to refine a development proposal, this is advice only and neither the Council nor an Inspector is beholden to this during the decision-making process. Should the appellant feel aggrieved they should take this up with the Council as it offers no weight to the merits of the appeal.

I have found that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, while it would also not preserve its openness. Paragraph 153 of the Framework is clear that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In turn, very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Having regard to the ‘other considerations’ set out above and the overall limited weight I attach to them in favour of the proposal, they would not ‘clearly outweigh’ the substantial weight which must be given to Green Belt harm and any other harm.

As such the proposal would conflict with the provisions of the development plan and advice in the Framework. The appeal is therefore dismissed.