Appeal 6005520

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for development comprising a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 4 dwellings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/3788/PIP.

I have largely taken the description of development in the banner heading above, from the application form but have left out superfluous detail so that it succinctly describes the proposal before me. The application form is clear that the appeal relates to a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 4 dwellings. I have assessed the proposal on this basis, amended the description of development in the formal decision to reflect this and treated the drawings as being for illustrative purposes only.

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 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle. 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 the second (‘technical details consent’) stage, when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

Therefore, the main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to location, proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site comprises an area of land located to the southwest of the [name] & [name] (CASSC) on the eastern side of [site address] . It comprises of a grassed area previously used as tennis courts and hardcore areas containing a number of storage containers.

The appeal site is designated as [name] (MOL). Policy G3 of The London Plan March 2021 (TLP) states that MOL is afforded the same status and level of protection as Green Belt and that it should be protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national planning policy tests that apply to the Green Belt. Similarly, Policy OS2 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] adopted July 2014 (LP) states that MOL should be protected from inappropriate development. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in respect of development within the Green Belt is therefore applicable.

The Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the exceptions in Paragraphs 154 or 155 apply. Paragraph 155, states that the development of homes should not be regarded as inappropriate where they utilise grey belt land and fulfil certain other criteria.

Having considered the definition of grey belt in the Framework, I find that the appeal site is limited in size, and the extent of the site is constrained by existing features including the recreation land associated with the CASSC to the north and east, the [name] to the south and the road and existing housing to the west. This means that the appeal site makes a useful but not strong contribution to checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas as set out in Paragraph 143 a) of the Framework.

There is no substantive evidence before me that the appeal site would strongly contribute to preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another or preserve the setting and special character of historic towns as described in Paragraphs b) and d) of Paragraph 143 of the Framework. Furthermore, I have not been referred to any of the policies set out in footnote 7 of the Framework which would provide a strong reason to refuse permission in this case. Therefore, having regard to the full definition in the Framework, the appeal site constitutes grey belt land.

The proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan as the site is constrained and the proposal is small scale. As the Council’s housing land supply sits at only 2.38 years, there is a demonstrable unmet need for the development of housing and there is no dispute from the Council that the appeal site is in a sustainable location. I therefore find that criteria (a), (b) and (c) of Paragraph 155 of the Framework have been met. Criteria (d) is not relevant as the proposal is not major development. Therefore, the development of homes on the appeal site would accord with Paragraph 155 of the Framework and would not be inappropriate development.

Turning to the amount of development proposed, the submitted drawings demonstrate that the site is capable of accommodating 4 dwellings along with an access road, on-site parking and front and rear garden areas. Whilst the Council has expressed some concerns regarding the positioning of the properties in the manner shown on the illustrative drawings, it accepts that the number of units proposed would be consistent with local character and would not constitute overdevelopment. My attention has not been drawn to any conflict with policy in this respect and I see no reason to conclude otherwise.

Drawing all this together, I conclude that the site would be suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, proposed land use and the amount of development and no conflict would arise with Policy G3 of the TLP and OS2 of the LP which seek to resist inappropriate development on MOL. I need not go on and consider the effect on openness. As the provision of 4 dwellings on the site would not be ancillary to any of the uses set out in Policy OS2 of the LP, Policy OS(a) of the LP is not relevant to my determination of the appeal.

The Council have referred to Policy G4 of the TLP and Policy OS3 of the LP in their reason for refusal. [name] understand that the appeal site was formerly used as tennis courts, no substantive evidence has been presented to me that demonstrates the development of the appeal site would lead to a deficiency in open space provision and be harmful to the South East London Green Chain and associated Green Chain Walk. For these reasons, I find no conflict with Policy G4 of the TLP and Policy OS3 of the LP.

The application site is in close proximity to the locally listed [site address] Bridge which runs over the [name] to the south of the site. From all that I have seen and read, I am satisfied that the scale, location and type of development proposed on the appeal site would preserve the character, appearance and setting of the bridge.

I do not need to be satisfied about all aspects of the development as this appeal relates to the ‘in principle’ aspects of residential development at the site. Development cannot proceed until technical details consent has been given and there is no requirement for this to be given automatically. Therefore, issues raised by interested parties including, but not limited to flood risk, impact on wildlife, loss of trees, highway safety, parking, noise and disruption to existing residents are not relevant to the proposal before me.

Previous planning applications at the appeal site are not relevant to the assessment of permission in principle, for the reasons already outlined. While it is argued that granting permission in principle could set a precedent for sport and leisure land across the wider site, each application and appeal must be judged on its own merits.

The condition of the land and the lack of public access to it are not factors which have had any bearing on my decision and whether enforcement action should be taken in respect of any gates which have been erected at the site, is a matter for the Council.

The PPG indicates that it is not possible for conditions to be attached to a grant of permission in principle. The default duration of the permission in principle is 3 years and applications for technical details consent must be determined within the duration of the permission granted.

The proposed development would adhere to the development plan and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR