Appeal 6006821

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. The appeal has been determined on this basis.

The application includes a proposed plan to demonstrate how the site might be developed. I have treated this information as illustrative.

The appeal site falls within a wider parcel of land extending to the west and south which is subject to both an injunction and an enforcement notice against development and use of the land. The Council advises that this land was formerly open pasture and due to the injunction and enforcement notice should be considered as such. The appellant does not dispute these facts, and I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis of the land being open pasture.

The main issues in the determination of the appeal are: 1 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] • the effect of the proposed development on the existing character and appearance of the area and the established settlement pattern; and • whether future residents of the proposed development would have access to services and facilities by sustainable modes of transport.

The appeal site comprises a flat, L-shaped parcel of land located on the western and southern edge of the village of [site address] . The main parties agree that it lies outside the defined settlement boundary and, in the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to disagree. It therefore falls as countryside for the purposes of the development plan.

Access to the site is taken from an informal track extending from the end of [name]. This estate is characterised by a clearly defined carriageway with footways and a consistent and orderly pattern of residential development on either side.

From this point, the appeal site extends along a relatively narrow strip of rough grassland before opening out into a more expansive area to the south. This larger part of the site appears surfaced and subdivided by fencing.

Policy 10 of the [site address] Plan 2020 (CDP) states that development in the countryside will not be permitted unless it accords with one of a number of specified exceptions or where it is supported by specific policies in the development plan. Footnote 54 of this policy identifies policies that may be relevant in this regard, including those relating to development on unallocated sites.

To this end, development on unallocated sites within the built‐up area or, where outside and well related to a settlement is supported by Policy 6 of the CDP. This is however, subject to compliance with relevant development plan policies and a series of specified criteria. The Council has indicated that Policy 6 applies to the proposal but that it would conflict with specified criteria (c) and (d). These require that development should not result in the loss of open land which contributes to the character of the locality or which has recreational, ecological or heritage value, unless the harm can be adequately mitigated or compensated, and that it should be appropriate in terms of scale, design, layout and location, having regard to the character, function, form and setting of the settlement.

The immediate surroundings of the appeal site are mixed in character. Having regard to the injunction and enforcement notice, the site formerly comprised open pasture, with further areas of open land and some buildings to the west and, in part, to the south, where a track and woodland lie beyond. The Newholme Estate to the north-east forms a cohesive residential grouping. In closer proximity to the access and along parts of the northern and eastern boundaries of the appeal site are a farmhouse and the rear boundaries of a bungalow and a converted stable building. Some further non-residential development exists to the eastern appeal site’s boundary.

Notwithstanding the mixed context, the appeal site occupies a peripheral position at the edge of the village and lies to the rear of existing residential properties. While it would adjoin some built development, its access route running along the rear boundaries of nearby dwellings gives it the characteristics of backland development. As a result, the proposal would exhibit a poor spatial and functional relationship with the established pattern of the settlement and would fail to integrate in a coherent or legible manner. Instead, it would appear physically and visually detached from the main body of the village and would not amount to a natural or logical extension when considered in terms of character, form, function and setting. Consequently, it would neither respect nor reinforce the prevailing character and appearance of the area and would instead read as an isolated and incongruous encroachment into the countryside.

The proposal would meet some of the other specified criteria of Policy 6 of the CDP such as not resulting in or contributing towards any coalescence with neighbouring settlements and would not result in the loss of open land within the settlement that has recreational, ecological or heritage value. However, these do not mitigate for the significant adverse effects detailed above.

A number of nearby residential developments (references DM/20/02417/FPA, DM/23/01558/FPA, DM/21/04254/FPA, DM/20/02300/FPA, DM/20/03494/FPA and DM/21/01313/OUT) have been cited to demonstrate that housing growth has occurred beyond the defined settlement boundary and in the vicinity of the appeal site. However, on the limited evidence before me, these developments appear to have a closer and more direct relationship with the settlement as a whole. While some have extended the residential pattern to the south and west, they remain more closely connected to, and read in association with, the [name] and the existing housing along [address]. By contrast, the appeal site does not share that same degree of integration. Furthermore, in respect of the extant outline permission for 88 dwellings to the north (reference DM/21/01313/OUT), while this will extend the settlement westwards to a broadly similar degree as the appeal proposal, it would not resolve the lack of integration between the appeal site and the established settlement pattern.

In conclusion and in terms of location and land use, the proposed development would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area and the character, function, form and setting of the settlement. It would conflict with Policies 10 and 6 of the CDP.

[site address] provides only a limited range of services and facilities within reasonable walking distance of the appeal site. Access to schools would be similarly constrained, with such provision located at a considerable distance towards and within Wingate. Although the appellant identifies a number of services and facilities within 800 metres (m) of the site, several essential services and facilities, including shops, medical services and pharmacies, are indicated to lie between approximately 1200m and 2600m away.

Notwithstanding this, regular bus services to Durham, Peterlee, Seaham and Hartlepool operate from stops on [address] and [address]. Some of these services also connect to the neighbouring villages of Wingate and [name], thereby providing access to a broader range of services, facilities, education and employment opportunities. However, there is a difference between the parties as to the distances to these stops from the appeal site. The appellant suggests distances of between 230m and 400m, whereas the Council indicates that the stops on [address] are approximately 510m to 560m from the proposed development. Based on my site observations, I find the Council’s figures to be a more reliable reflection of the actual walking distances. Furthermore, although the Council has not specified distances to the bus stops on [address], I consider it likely, given their position, that they would be at least as far, and potentially further, than those on [address].

The Council refers to guidance produced by the Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation (CIHT). The Planning for Walking (2015) document indicates that walkable neighbourhoods are typically characterised by having a range of facilities within a 10-minute walk, or around 800m. In addition, the CIHT publication Buses in [name] advises that access to public transport should be safe, convenient and generally within a walking distance of around 400m. The appellant has not disputed the use or detail of this guidance.

Against this background, it is evident that the appeal site would not meet these recommended walking distances, particularly in respect of access to public transport, where the distances involved would be appreciably greater. This is further exacerbated by the configuration of the site. [name] form would require pedestrians to navigate around existing development boundaries to access the informal track, which would be neither direct nor convenient in terms of encouraging walking. Based on my observations, I am not persuaded that a suitably convenient route would be provided to the bus stops such that walking would represent a realistic alternative to the use of a private car.

As with the housing growth, the appellant also refers again to the nearby residential developments referenced above as demonstrating that access to services, facilities and public transport was acceptable in the vicinity of the appeal site. However, while many of these developments are similarly placed in relation to services and facilities, all are, or in the case of the extant permission would be, located closer to the bus stops on [address] and [address] than the appeal site. Based on my site observations and with no evidence to the contrary, it is likely that these developments benefit, or would benefit, from walking distances to those stops of around or below 400 metres, consistent with the distances advocated in the relevant CIHT guidance.

[name] see little technical reason that an appropriate footpath along the informal track and within the appeal site could not be provided and no issues with highway safety or capacity of the network have been identified, these would not resolve my concern regarding the lack of realistic alternative sustainable modes of transport detailed above.

Consequently, and in terms of location and land use, the proposed development would not offer future residents satisfactory access to services and facilities by sustainable modes of transport. It would conflict with Policy 10 of the CDP and Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (Framework) both of which seek to ensure that new development is not solely reliant upon unsustainable modes of transport, and is located where it would be well served by public transport.

The Council confirms that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, identifying a supply of 4.4 years. In such circumstances, Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. This sets out that, where the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusal, or any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. In applying this balance, the Framework advises that particular regard should be had to key policies relating to the delivery of development in sustainable locations, the effective use of land, the achievement of well-designed places, and the provision of affordable housing.

In this case, however, Policies 10 and 6 of the CDP are both relevant and, taken together, are the most important policies for determining the appeal. No substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that they are out-of-date. Moreover, the policies are broadly consistent with the Framework’s objectives, including directing development to sustainable locations, promoting effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment, achieving well‐designed places and promoting sustainable transport. They therefore attract significant weight. Consequently, the proposal’s conflict with these policies weighs heavily against it in the planning balance.

The proposal would boost the supply of homes in line with the Government’s objective and as set out in Paragraph 61 of the Framework. It would also provide a mix of housing types for the local community and contribute towards the shortfall in the housing supply. It would also provide some economic and social benefits, including limited support for local services and activity during the construction phase. However, due to the scale of the proposal, its contribution to these aspects would be modest. I therefore attribute moderate weight to these benefits.

Paragraph 124 of the Framework seeks to secure the effective use of land in meeting identified housing needs, whilst also safeguarding and improving the environment. The appeal site, however, comprises open pasture in the countryside and does not constitute previously developed land. The proposal would introduce built form into the area, thereby eroding its existing character. It would neither safeguard nor improve the environment, and it would not represent the effective use of land in the sense envisaged by the Framework. Consequently, this matter does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

Drawing these matters together, the benefits of the proposal, whether taken individually or cumulatively, attract no more than moderate weight. Set against this, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, the character and function of the settlement, and to the objective of locating development in accessible and sustainable locations. Having regard to the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in Paragraphs 7 and 11 of the Framework does not indicate that permission should be granted. The proposal would not represent sustainable development and would fail to meet the social and environmental objectives in Paragraph 8 of the Framework. Furthermore, Paragraph 39 of the Framework, which promotes the approval of sustainable development where possible, would not apply in this instance.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.