Appeal 6006015

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a subterranean dwelling with associated landscaping at the [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1511/FUL, subject to the conditions in [name].

The description of development in the banner heading is taken from the application form, however the first part of it is superfluous as it is not an act of development so in the formal decision, I have just used the second part of it.

The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • The effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; • Whether or not the proposed development would be provided with a safe and suitable access; 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 located in the Green Belt as designated by Policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (adopted July 2017) (CELPS). This policy indicates that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for one of a number of exceptions listed in the policy. It also states that inappropriate development in the Green Belt will only be granted in very special circumstances.

Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework also set out the forms of development that are not considered to be inappropriate in the Green Belt. As the CELPS predates the publication of the most recent Framework, the forms of development set out in Policy PG3 do not include development on grey belt land. The Framework indicates that due weight should be given to development plan policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. I have therefore given greater weight to the Framework in my consideration of whether or not the proposal is inappropriate development.

Paragraph 154e) of the Framework and policy PG3 both indicate that one of the forms of development that is not inappropriate in the Green Belt is limited infilling in villages. What constitutes limited infilling or a village is not defined in the Framework.

However, as part of the preparation of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (adopted December 2022) (SADPD) the Council undertook a Settlement and [name] (SIBR). The infill boundaries are for smaller settlements in the Green Belt / open countryside that do not have a settlement boundary but where Policies PG3 and PG6 of the CELPS indicate that limited infilling in villages is allowed. The report sets out a clear methodology for firstly defining what constitutes a village for this purpose and then for defining the boundaries where infilling would be appropriate.

In the absence of any national guidance this is a reasonable approach to provide consistency in establishing what settlements can be considered a village for the purposes of Green Belt and [name] policies and within these villages where it is appropriate for infilling to take place.

[name] was assessed as part of this assessment and did not meet the criteria for being a village. In the light of this I consider that the proposal cannot represent limited infilling as it is not in a village.

Whilst in support of the appeal, my attention was drawn to another nearby appeal1, this appeal gave no consideration to whether or not [name] was a village, as it was not a relevant factor in that case. It simply indicates that the site subject of that appeal formed part of the settlement of [name] that has limited services and facilities as set out in the SIBR.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework indicates that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate if the development meets all the following criteria: a. The 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; b. There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; 1 Appeal Reference APP/R0660/W/24/3354674 c. The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework; and d. Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘[name] requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 below.

The glossary of the Framework defines what constitutes grey belt land and detailed guidance on how to assess whether land is grey belt is set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). In line with this guidance, I have assessed the site in relation to the contribution it makes to Green Belt purposes a), b) and d) set out in paragraph 143 of the Framework.

The appeal site is not adjacent to or near to a large built up area, does not form part of a gap between towns and does not form part of the setting of a historic town. Consequently, it does not make a strong contribution to purpose a), b) or d). In addition, I have not been informed that the site is covered, or affected, by any of the designations in footnote 7 of the Framework. I therefore conclude that the site is grey belt land.

[name] note the reasons set out in the Officer’s report for why they consider it is not grey belt land their assessment does not follow the detailed guidance given in the PPG on how to determine this. The fact that it is “a small area of land in a rural area” and that the gaps between houses gives an open character to the area that “has the feel of being within the Green Belt” are not appropriate measures to assess whether a parcel of land contributes strongly to the relevant purposes. Moreover, the fact that using the criteria set out in the PPG means that large areas of the Green Belt could be classified as grey belt, as suggested by a local resident, is not a reason for not using these criteria.

Given the limited scale of the development and size of the site, the proposal would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. Criterion a) of paragraph 155 is therefore met.

The Council have indicated that they cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, with the most recent assessment showing they only have a 3.3 year supply. There is therefore a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed and criterion b) is met. In addition, as the proposal is not major development, criterion d) and paragraphs 156 and 157 are not applicable.

[name] has limited services and facilities – a post box, a small play area and a village hall. There is no public transport and whilst there are some footways on the surrounding roads, [address] has no footways or lighting. However, as set out in the aforementioned appeal, [name] is within reasonable proximity to Macclesfield, one of two principal towns in the district as defined in CELPS Policy PG2, and [name] and Prestbury which are both designated Local Service Centres. As a consequence, there is a wide range of services and facilities within a reasonable distance of the site.

Whilst there is about 750m between the two appeal sites, and site subject to this appeal is slightly further away from Macclesfield and slightly nearer to [name], this does not make a material difference to the findings of the previous appeal regarding the accessibility of the site to services and facilities.

The services and facilities in these nearby settlements are not within walking distance but are within cycling distance, and the Council have indicated that [address] forms part of cycle route 70, although it does not have dedicated cycle lanes. Whilst it cannot be assumed that future occupants will own or ride a bicycle, neither on that basis can it be assumed they will own or be able to drive a car.

Whilst a pedestrian entering and exiting the site would be required to walk on the carriageway to reach either Macclesfield or [address] and to use the facilities that exist within [name], this is the current situation for existing residents on [address] and I have not been provided with any evidence to show this is currently causing highway safety issues.

Notwithstanding the potential for cycling, future residents would be largely reliant on private transport to address their day-to-day needs. However, such journeys would be short and as the proposal is for a single dwelling, they would be limited in number. The Framework highlights that the opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Overall, I consider that for a rural location the site is a relatively accessible location, and it does not conflict with paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework which seek to prioritise sustainable transport solutions.

As a result, I consider that the proposed development would accord with the criteria set out in paragraph 155 of the Framework and would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Having regard to the Framework and the Court of Appeal judgement2, as the effect of the development on openness and the purposes of including land within the Green Belt are not expressly stated as determinative factors in gauging the inappropriateness of the development, there is no requirement for me to separately assess the impact of the development on the openness of the Green Belt, or the purposes of including land within it.

The site would be accessed from [address], about halfway along the site’s frontage. [address] is an unlit, one way, single track road with no footways. Whilst the speed limit is 60mph, the need to turn into it from [address], and the fact that it is relatively short in length, means such speeds are unlikely to ever be reached.

Whilst it is stated that the proposal would use an existing access, this access is barely visible as it has largely been subsumed into the hedge, and it clearly has not been used for a considerable period of time. The access is set back from the road by a grass verge. This verge does not form part of the red line boundary of the site, and I have been provided with no evidence regarding its ownership.

As a one-way road, adequate visibility of vehicles is only required in one direction although pedestrian visibility is required in both. At appeal the appellant has provided a plan showing it would be possible to achieve a 99m x 2.4m visibility splay to the south. However, this is not a detailed scale drawing and relies on the grass verge between the red line boundary and the carriageway. [address] Authority, R (on the application of) v Epping Forest District Council & Anor (Rev 1) [2016] [name] 404

The appellant has suggested that the provision of the access and an appropriate visibility splay, and if necessary, a speed survey, could be required by a condition. To this end I note that such a condition has also been suggested by the Council. This implies they consider such a condition would meet the requirements for a Grampian condition. Whilst the ownership of this land is currently unknown, I have been provided with no compelling evidence that this is a firm impediment to development and that there is no realistic prospect that an appropriate visibility splay could be secured within the lifetime of the permission. As such, this is a matter that could be satisfactorily dealt with by a condition. Appropriate mitigation for the hedgerow that would need to be removed to create the vehicular and pedestrian access can be secured by a landscaping condition.

Consequently, I consider sufficient information has been provided to show that a safe and suitable access for the development could be achieved. Accordingly, there is no conflict with Policy SD1 of the CELPS and Policy INF3 of the SADPD which, amongst other things, require developments to provide a safe access to and from the site.

Third parties have raised concerns regarding the impact of the development on wildlife. However, the Council’s ecology team have raised no objections to the proposal subject to various conditions. [name] have seen or read leads me to a different conclusion in this respect. Moreover, as a single dwelling there is no policy requirement for it to contribute towards affordable housing.

The additional traffic movements created by a single dwelling would be limited and, whilst I note the comments of local residents about the suitability of the road and particularly the junction of [address] and [address], there is no objection from the Highways Authority in this respect. Given this, and my own observations, I am satisfied the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety in this respect.

The proposal, through its subterranean design, grass roof and grasscrete drive would largely retain the grassed character of the plot, as such the impact it would have on the character and appearance of the area would be minimal.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in the light of paragraph 56 of the Framework. In the interests of clarity, preciseness and enforceability I have altered the wording of a number of them.

In addition to the standard implementation condition, to provide certainty it is necessary to define the plans with which the scheme should accord (condition 2). Conditions 3–5 and 11-12 are required in the interests of the character and appearance of the area, with the latter two also being to accord with Policies SE1, SE4 and SE5 of the CELPs and Policy ENV5 of the SADPD. Given the bespoke architectural design of the dwelling, I consider in this instance the removal of the permitted development rights in condition 4 and 5 is appropriate.

For highway safety reasons conditions 6 and 7 are required. For the same reason and also in the interests of the character and appearance of the area condition 13 is necessary. Condition 14 is required in the interests of encouraging sustainable transport.

Condition 8 is necessary to ensure the proposal accords with [name] requirements and conditions 9 and 10 are required for biodiversity reasons. To ensure the site is satisfactorily drained condition 15 is necessary.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: Location Plan 100; Site Block Plan 101; Ground Floor Plan 104; Proposed Floor Plan 105; and [name] 110.

Prior to the first use on the site of any external facing materials forming part of the development hereby permitted, full details for the external facing materials shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The details shall include: specification, material, colour and texture covering; windows; doors; green roof; rainwater goods and walls. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name], AA, B, C, D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates or walls or other means of enclosure, no additional accesses and no hard surfaces with regards to Class F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order and [name] and B of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Order, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be erected or constructed on the site.

No development hereby permitted shall take place until details of the access to the site with regards to connection with the serving highway have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. This shall include details of the visibility splays and access width. The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the access and visibility splays have been provided in accordance with the approved details, and the visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 1m in height.

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the double garage shown on the approved drawings subject of condition 2 has been installed and is fully operational. Thereafter the garage shall be kept available for the parking of vehicles by the occupants of the dwelling and their visitors and for no other purpose.

The dwelling hereby permitted shall be constructed as a self-build dwelling within the definition of self-build and custom build housing in the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended): a. The first occupation of the unit in the development hereby permitted shall be by a person or persons who had a primary input into the design and layout of the unit and who intends to live in the unit for at least 3 years; b. The Council shall be notified of the persons who intend to take up first occupation of the unit in the development hereby permitted at least two months prior to first occupation.

No removal of any vegetation shall take place between 1st March and 31st August in any year, unless a detailed survey has been carried out to check for nesting birds. Where nests are found in any hedgerow, tree or scrub or other habitat to be removed a 4m exclusion zone shall be left around the nest until breeding is complete. Completion of nesting shall be confirmed by a suitably qualified person and a report submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority, before any further works take place within the exclusion zone.

Prior to the use of any building materials in the development hereby permitted, an Ecological Enhancement Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Measures shall include bird nest boxes and a bat box. Such approved measures shall be implemented in full before the dwelling hereby permitted is first occupied and shall be retained as such thereafter.

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a scheme for the landscaping of the site has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall include scaled plans, cross sections and written specifications detailing the following: a. topography, including existing and proposed finished ground levels and contours; b. surfaces, including natural and artificial materials, construction of any new surfaces and relationship with adjoining topographic features including ground levels; c. hard-landscaping, including any walls, gates, steps and other external structures, subterranean structures and lighting; and d. planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation, soil quality, methodologies for plant establishment, and other operations associated with tree, shrub, hedge or grass establishment), schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes, the proposed numbers and densities and an implementation programme.

The approved landscaping plan shall be completed in accordance with the following: a. All hard and soft landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved scheme and implementation programme. b. All trees, shrubs and hedge plants supplied shall comply with the requirements of [name] 3936, Specification for [name] and all pre planting site preparation, planting and post planting maintenance works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of [name] 4428(1989) Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (excluding hard surfaces); c. All new tree plantings shall be positioned in accordance with the requirements of [name].1 of BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction: Recommendations; and d. Any trees, shrubs or hedges planted in accordance with this condition which are removed, die, become severely damaged or become seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedging plants of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of the bin storage within the curtilage of the dwelling, and relative to the highway for collection, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The details shall include siting, specification and materials. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the bin store has been installed in accordance with the approved details and it shall be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of a secure cycle store have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The details shall include siting, specification and materials to provide parking for 1no. cycle. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the cycle store has been installed in accordance with the approved details and it shall be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

No development shall take place until a detailed drainage strategy / design, and associated management / maintenance plan for the site has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The drainage design must also include; a. Surface water run-off rates; b. Storm water design periods and intensity & any temporary storage facilities included, to ensure adequate drainage is implemented on site. Any tests or investigations carried out during this stage must be in accordance with BRE365 and CIRIA guidance; c. Detailed boundary drainage; and d. a management and maintenance plan. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details, and the dwelling shall not be occupied until it is fully operational, and it shall be retained as such thereafter in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development.