Appeal 6007354

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are:- - whether the development would be in a suitable location having regard to accessibility, development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); - the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would conserve or enhance the natural, scenic and landscape beauty of the Chilterns National Landscape (the NL); - whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; - the effect on openness; - whether the development would be served by a suitable surface water drainage scheme; - whether it would represent a suitable density of development and would provide an acceptable mix of dwellings; and - if the scheme would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other factors so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

Policy CP3 of the Wycombe District Local Plan 2019 (the LP) sets out a settlement strategy for different tiers of settlements. I am advised that [site address] is classed as a tier 5 small village where only rural exceptions affordable housing schemes are permissible. Moreover, LP policy CP3 states that outside of settlements development will be restricted to that which is appropriate in a rural area. Plan C from the Bledlow-cum-Saunderton Neighbourhood Plan 2017 (the NP) identifies the appeal site as being adjacent to but outside the defined boundary for the village. I am taken to no LP or NP policy that is permissive of new housing development in rural parts of the District. As such, the location of the proposal would be contrary to the LP settlement strategy and the NP’s spatial plan.

The approach of directing most new development to larger settlements as set out in the LP reflects the aims at paragraph 110 of the Framework to limit the need to travel and to offer a genuine choice of transport modes. However, the proposed dwellings would not be remote but they would be near to existing houses and a pub. As such, the development would not be contrary to paragraph 84 of the Framework that seeks to avoid isolated new homes. Moreover, the development would be near enough to the central part of the village so to allow residents the opportunity to travel by foot to the local village hall, primary school, church and shop. A roadside pavement along most of the route would aid safe walking between the proposed houses and these local services. Therefore, the proposal would accord with paragraph 83 of the Framework that advocates rural housing being located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

There are bus stops at and opposite the pub adjacent to the site. These would provide residents with convenient access to bus services, particularly if a direct pedestrian link is provided from the development as indicated. Only limited and infrequent bus services use these stops and they are primarily aimed at providing links from the village to secondary schools in Aylesbury and [name]. Nonetheless, there would be some limited opportunity to travel by bus between the development and larger settlements.

The proposed housing would be beyond a reasonable walking distance from the mainline railway station at Saunderton, although future residents may feel able to travel there and back by cycle. In any event, the station is a short car journey away from the appeal site and it would provide a fairly convenient rail travel option for occupiers of the development and for visitors. Therefore, the location of the proposal would provide a reasonable level of accessibility by means other than the private car.

Even so, it is likely that residents would still need to travel by car away from the village to access some services. In these regards, the development would not fully accord with LP policies CP12 and DM33 that both look to minimise the need to travel and promote sustainable transport use. However, the 5 houses proposed would only generate a modest amount of trips and so the proposal would not be a significant development as referred to under paragraph 110 of the Framework. The same paragraph also highlights that the opportunities to utilise sustainable modes of transport will vary between urban and rural areas.

The appellant has referred to other appeal decisions where Inspectors have commented on the issues of location and accessibility. None of these appeal schemes are so similar to the proposal before me to set a precedent that I am bound to follow.

In summary, I conclude the appeal site would not be a suitable location for the proposed housing having regard to LP policies CP3, CP12 and DM33 as well as NP policy 2. The Council’s refusal reason on this matter also refers to LP policy CP2 but this sets out a strategy to be applied in the allocations and policies of the LP rather than criteria against which this planning appeal should be assessed. The harm caused by reason of the identified conflict with development plan policies is tempered as the proposal would accord with the provisions of the Framework on the location of rural housing. Also, the development would be located so as to afford residents with reasonable access to sustainable modes of travel, particularly in light of its rural location. Character and appearance of area and effect on the NL.

The appeal site forms the front part of a field laid to grass. It has a wide frontage onto [site address] and the field slopes down significantly towards its rear boundary. There are trees and hedgerows along most of the roadside boundary although there is a small gap where a field gate access exists. There are dwellings on the opposite side of the road and the field lies between a short run of houses and the pub. A public footpath runs along the rear boundary of the field past a small cluster of houses and onto the road. Despite the presence of the nearby properties, the field appears as part of the countryside beyond the built up extent of the village as it is a significant area of open grassland with vegetated boundaries.

The proposed houses would be in a line facing [site address] and behind a shared access drive. The row would extend across most of the width of the appeal site. All the dwellings would have habitable accommodation over 2 levels, albeit with the first storey rooms within the roof space. Existing and proposed planting would help partially screen views of the development from the highway and from the adjacent houses and those opposite. However, I am unconvinced that this would entirely conceal the proposed dwellings, particularly during times of leaf fall when the vegetation cover would be reduced. Also, the houses would be seen from the public highway through the proposed access and when looking up the slope from the public footpath to the rear. I am referred to no vantage points in the wider landscape from where the development would be seen but it would have a noticeable, localised visual effect.

From where it is visible, the development would appear as the encroachment of built form onto land that is currently undeveloped field. The houses would be detached and with gaps in between but nonetheless the introduction of 5 dwellings with associated infrastructure, garden features and parking would represent a marked erosion in the openness of the site. New planting is proposed that would help retain a sense of greenery to the site’s frontage. However, the dwellings would be seen through gaps in this vegetation, thereby reducing the overall natural feel of the site compared to the existing situation. This detrimental loss of openness and rural feel to the field would also be noticeable by users of the public footpath,

The proposed buildings would not appear incongruous to the locality given the nearby properties. Indeed, the traditional residential appearance and linear set back position of the houses would reflect the style and layout of dwellings on the opposite side of the road and adjoining the field. However, acceptability in these regards fails to fully address or override the harm that would be caused through the loss of the open countryside feel to the site.

The appeal site represents a very small part of the NL. Also, its contribution to the qualities of the wider rural landscape is limited due to it being enclosed by boundary vegetation and its close proximity to existing buildings. Nonetheless, the development would be detrimental to the natural qualities and appearance of the field. Moreover, despite including the upper floors in the roof spaces, the houses would be tall enough to interrupt and affect long distance views from the road and houses opposite the site of the rising valley at Lacey Green and [address]. Such views are currently restricted by the boundary vegetation and they often include the existing properties to the rear of the site. Even so, the view from the road across the site is identified in appendix C of the NP as being a key view. The proposed houses would be seen in most views of the site as they would be fairly near to the frontage and extend across most of the width of the field. The gaps between the dwellings would not meaningfully preserve the existing scenic views. Accordingly, I find the development would be detrimental to both the natural and the scenic qualities of the NL as experienced from [site address] .

For these reasons, I conclude the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Also, it would not conserve nor enhance the natural, scenic and landscape beauty of the NL. In these regards, it would be contrary to LP policies DM30 and DM32 and NP policies 1, 5, 6 and 10. Amongst other things, these policies seek to protect the qualities of the NL and to ensure development respects the landscape and key views. The Council’s refusal reason on this matter also refers to LP policies CP2 and CP3 as well as NP policy 2 but they contain no provisions relevant to this issue. Whether the harm that would be caused to the NL represents a strong reason to refuse planning permission.

I am required to consider whether the identified harm to the NL provides a strong reason to refuse planning permission in my assessment of the development against Green Belt policy and in overall terms. This requires balancing that harm against the factors in support of allowing the appeal.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 years’ worth of housing land supply in relation to its housing targets for the West Planning Area as required under the terms of the Framework. The evidence before me indicates that only 1.98 years’ worth of deliverable sites can be demonstrated. This represents a significant shortfall. The proposal would make a modest contribution towards the supply of housing land but in light of the undersupply I attach moderate weight to this as a benefit to the scheme.

Moreover, as a small windfall site it is likely the proposal would be built out quite quickly. The development would create and support construction and related employment and I have already found that residents are likely to support facilities within the village. Any permission granted would be subject to the statutory biodiversity gain condition that would secure a level of enhancement in these regards. Overall, I find the development would lead to significant benefits.

However, paragraph 189 of the Framework states great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in various areas including the NL. The proposal would not be a major development and so it is not resisted under the terms of paragraph 190 of the Framework. Nonetheless, the NL is an area afforded the highest status of protection. Also, section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 includes a requirement to seek to further the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the NL. To allow the appeal would go against this statutory duty. With this and the Framework’s provisions in mind, I find the harm that would be caused by the development to the qualities of the NL outweigh any benefits and factors that add support for permitting the scheme. As such, I conclude the identified harm that would be caused to the NL provides a strong reason to refuse permission.

In arriving at this view, I have had regard to the appeal decision in appendix E to the appellant’s statement of case. However, this decision relates to an entirely different type of development and elsewhere in the country. Therefore, my conclusion above is not inconsistent with that decision. Whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

LP policy DM42 states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate although it sets out exceptions. These include where a proposal is classed as not inappropriate development in the Green Belt under the terms of the Framework. In these respects, the policy is clearly consistent with the Framework and so it is not out of date. Part 1(b) of LP policy DM42 also sets out various clarifications on how some of the exception categories in the Framework are to be interpreted.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states the development of homes in the Green Belt is not inappropriate where it would utilise grey belt land. This is defined in the Framework’s glossary as land that does not strongly contribute to 3 of the purposes of Green Belt policy. However, the definition states grey belt excludes land where the application of policies relating to areas in footnote 7 of the Framework provide a strong reason to refuse the development. I have already found the identified harm to the NL provides a strong reason to refuse the appeal scheme and so the proposal would not utilise grey belt land. Therefore, it would not accord with paragraph 155 of the Framework.

It is also advanced that the proposal would be limited infilling in a village and so it would accord with the exception set out at sub-paragraph 154(e) of the Framework. The clarification provided at part 1(b)(iv) of LP policy DM42 states it is only limited infilling within villages in accordance with paragraph 6.222 of the LP that is acceptable. The appellant suggests this requirement brings LP policy DM42 into conflict with the Framework and so the policy should be treated as being out of date. However, there is no direct contradiction as the Framework includes no definition as to the meaning of “limited infilling”. Also, there is nothing within the Framework to indicate the approach of LP policy DM42 is unsuitable. Therefore, I find the policy is not out of date.

[name] paragraph 6.222, limited infilling is defined as one detached or one pair of semi-detached dwellings in a small gap between other buildings in a built-up area. The proposed introduction of 5 dwellings would be in excess of this limit. The appeal site has a pub and houses on each side but its wide frontage means the plot appears as a sizeable open space rather than a small gap between buildings. Therefore, the proposal would not represent limited infilling, irrespective as to whether it would be in a built up area or village.

The appellant refers to other appeal decisions that cover the issue of limited infilling in Green Belt villages. These all relate to different proposals and on land well away from the appeal site. Having regard to the particular characteristics of the appeal site and its surroundings, I find the proposal would not represent limited infilling and so it would not fall within the exception category as set out in sub-paragraph 154(e). The other appeal decisions do not set an irresistible precedent that I am bound to follow in my assessment of this proposal.

There is no claim the development would fall into any of the other exceptions listed at paragraph 154 of the Framework. Accordingly, I conclude it would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Effect on openness.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework highlights that an essential characteristic of Green Belts are their openness. The appeal site is currently vacant of buildings. The introduction of 5 houses and associated domestic features and parking is bound to lead to a marked erosion in the spatial openness of the land. The visual effect on openness would be less striking as existing and proposed planting would partially screen the development from the road and nearby properties. Also, in some views, it would be seen alongside existing houses rather than a protrusion into the countryside away from the settlement. Even so, I find the proposal would cause a moderate level of harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Surface water drainage.

A proposed drainage system would direct surface water runoff from the proposed buildings and areas of hardstanding to a single deep bored soakaway. Technical documents have been provided that describe the results of ground tests and seek to justify the acceptability of the drainage scheme.

A sustainable drainage officer acting on behalf of the Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) raises queries over omissions within the appellant’s drainage information as well as concerns over the modelling calculations for the borehole soakaway. However, the LLFA also suggest the imposition of a condition in the event of the appeal being allowed. This would require the approval of further details relating to the proposed drainage as well as information on the effects of flooding in the event of exceedance or failure of the system. Given the land levels within the field drop steeply down away from the road I see no reason why surface water runoff from the development would adversely affect the proposed houses or any other nearby properties.

Subject to the imposition of the suggested condition, I conclude the development would be served by a suitable surface water drainage system. In these regards, it would accord with LP policy DM39. Amongst other things, this policy looks for development to incorporate sustainable drainage systems that do not increase runoff rates. Density and mix of dwellings.

LP policy CP9 looks to optimise the density of development to make the best use of land whilst respecting the distinctive character of the area. The policy is consistent with the provisions of the Framework that look to promote the effective use of land in meeting the need for homes whilst safeguarding and improving the environment.

The appeal site has an area of just under 0.5 hectares and so the proposal would represent a housing density of about 10 dwellings per hectare. However, LP policy CP9 does not set out minimum density requirements as advocated under the Framework. As such, the assessment as to whether the appeal scheme would represent an acceptable density of housing is a planning judgment, although the character of the area is a factor to be considered given the terms of LP policy CP9.

I have already found that the appeal development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It is highly likely that a scheme for more than 5 dwellings would be as detrimental or more harmful to the landscape and rural character of the site compared to the appeal development. NP policy 2 requires housing to be at a density that is in keeping with the existing pattern of nearby housing development. The proposed dwellings would closely reflect the style, layout and density of adjacent housing and on the opposite side of the road. Therefore, I find the proposal would be acceptable in terms of density.

LP policy DM22 requires a mix of dwelling size, type and tenure having regard to housing need. However, the policy only relates to residential development of 10 or more dwellings and so it is not relevant in the assessment of the appeal scheme. Moreover, the requirement under NP policy 2 that at least half of houses should have either 2 or 3 bedrooms only relates to proposals for development within the defined settlement boundary. The appeal development would lie outside the [site address] boundary and so NP policy 2 does not apply. Therefore, whilst there is evidence of a need for a range of different residences, there is no relevant development plan policy that requires the appeal scheme to include dwellings of different sizes.

For these reasons, I conclude the proposal would represent a suitable density of development and that it would provide an acceptable mix of dwellings. In these regards, I find no conflict with LP policies CP9 and DM22 and NP policy 2. Green Belt balance.

The proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt and so under the terms of LP policy DM42 and paragraph 153 of the Framework it should be refused unless very special circumstances exist. This would only be the case where the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In this balancing exercise, the Framework dictates that substantial weight is given to any harm caused to the Green Belt.

In deciding that the identified harm to the NL would provide a strong reason to refuse planning permission I have attached significant weight to the benefits of the proposal. However, the detriment to the qualities of the NL would outweigh these benefits. Also, additional substantial weight against allowing the appeal is attributed to the finding that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The effect of the development on Green Belt openness attracts moderate weight. The harm caused due to the identified conflict with development plan policies on the location of development and travel attracts limited weight. The acceptability of the scheme in terms of density, mix of units and drainage is a neutral factor in my assessment.

Overall, the benefits of the proposal would not clearly outweigh the harm that would be caused to the Green Belt and the other identified harm. As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the scheme on Green Belt grounds do not exist. Therefore, I conclude the development would be contrary to LP policies DM42 and CP8, NP policy 1 and the provisions of the Framework on Green Belt.

Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged as the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land. However, the presumption towards allowing the development does not apply as policies of the Framework on national landscapes and the Green Belt provide strong reasons to refuse planning permission. As such, there is insufficient justification to allow the appeal contrary to

The proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.