Appeal 6007534

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the address of the appeal site in the banner heading above from the application form, omitting the word ‘part’, as this appears to be a typographical error.

The description of development in the banner heading is different to the description specified on the planning application form. However, the revised description was agreed by the main parties during the application process. I have therefore determined the appeal based on the revised agreed description.

The Planning Practice Guidance advises that the Permission in Principle route is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. It has two 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 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 the first stage is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Whether the location, the proposed land use and the amount of development is suitable for residential development, having particular regard to the development plan strategy for housing, access to services and facilities, and the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises an agricultural field, set behind a tall frontage hedgerow, along a rural road. The site is located adjacent to but outside the settlement of Littleham. Accordingly, the site lies within the open countryside.

Policy ST01 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031, October 2018 (the LP) states that the Councils will take a positive approach to development proposals in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Policy ST07 of the LP sets out a spatial development strategy for [name] rural area. This directs new development, including housing, to Schedule A and B settlements. Outside of Schedule A and B settlements, in ‘[name], appropriately located development of a modest scale will be enabled to meet locally generated needs. In the countryside, beyond ‘Local Centres’, ‘Villages’ and ‘[name], development is limited to that which is enabled to meet local economic and social needs, rural building reuse and development which is necessarily restricted to a countryside location. With Policy ST17 of the LP seeking a balanced local housing market.

In qualifying ‘[name], Policy DM24 of the LP sets out that proposals for local occupancy dwellings to meet a locally identified housing need will be supported where specific exceptions apply.

Littleham qualifies as a ‘[name], but the appeal site lies beyond the village. The appellant suggests that the development could be secured to meet a local need, but there are otherwise limited details before me. In particular, evidence of an existing and specific local need within the area has not been identified. In these circumstances, the proposed development is contrary to the Council’s development plan strategy for housing.

Policy ST10 of the LP outlines the transport strategy for [name]. In part, the strategy seeks to reduce the environmental and social impacts of transport by, amongst other things, reducing the need to travel by car and enabling alternative sustainable travel options. Similarly, Policy DM06 of the LP, amongst other things, seeks proposals which encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport. This is consistent with the Framework which seeks to ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised taking account of the vision for the site, the type of development and its location.

Located immediately adjacent to houses within the settlement, the appeal site is within walking and cycling distance of the village, via quiet rural roads and a bridleway. However, as a ‘[name], the services and amenities in Littleham are limited to a village hall, two churches and a public house.

A greater range of services and amenities are located in Bideford but at approximately 2.7 kilometres away, along rural roads, without continuous footways or streetlighting, walking and cycling would not be encouraged, particularly during hours of darkness and in poor weather conditions.

There is a bus stop within the village. While the bus service is limited, it would offer opportunities to access larger settlements within the wider area. Albeit the use of bus travel is restricted by the poor frequency of the service on offer.

The Framework states that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Nonetheless, even with a bus service and some services locally, these are very limited and future occupiers would be highly dependent on the use of private cars, including the use of local taxi services and electric vehicles. Indeed, the use of taxi services and / or electric vehicles would not eliminate the reliance on vehicles to access facilities, nor would it promote the health and environmental benefits from regular active travel such as walking and cycling. Likewise, although car-sharing schemes and community transport initiatives can reduce the reliance on traditional commuting, there is no substantiated evidence that they are realistic opportunities in this rural location.

Consequently, the proposal would not prioritise sustainable transport modes, and it is not clear to what extent the proposal would enhance or maintain the vitality of the nearby community.

As an agricultural field, beyond the existing houses along the road, set within the wider agricultural landscape, the appeal site has a rural character. The site is therefore representative of its [name]: Type 5B: [name], as set out in the Joint Landscape Character Assessment for [name] and [name].

Policy DM08A of the LP, amongst other things, requires development to be of an appropriate scale, mass and design that recognises and respects landscape character, which should avoid adverse landscape and seascape impacts, and also seeks to enhance the landscape and seascape assets wherever possible.

The introduction of up to three new dwellings onto the sizeable parcel of undeveloped land would noticeably extend the amount of built development adjacent to the existing buildings within the settlement. In addition, the domestication of the site, would introduce a reasonable amount of built form, and encroachment, within the landscape.

It is the case that various matters can be agreed at the technical details consent stage, including the design and appearance of the proposed dwellings, as well as a landscape scheme, which could incorporate the boundary hedgerows. However, the proposed new dwellings would still be visible from the road and the wider, open rural landscape, and these matters would not address the concerns identified above. As such, new residential development on the land would appear abrupt and conspicuous, which would be incongruous within the landscape.

Overall, for the above reasons, I conclude that the location, the proposed land use and the amount of development is not suitable for residential development, having particular regard to the development plan strategy for housing, access to services and facilities, and the effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would thereby conflict with Policies ST01, ST07, ST10, ST17, DM06, DM08A and DM24 of the LP.

Up to three additional houses would contribute to boosting the supply of new housing, as referenced in the Framework. As a windfall site, development could also be delivered relatively quickly. There would be social and economic benefits to local services during the construction phases and following occupation, supporting local businesses. Open market houses could also be occupied by local people and support local, rural jobs, and there is support for the development from the Parish Council. I am also mindful that the proposal could achieve BNG, but this is a mandatory requirement, and I afford the matter limited weight as a benefit.

While the appellant suggests that the site was previously promoted through the [name] and [name] and Economic Land Availability Assessment, I have limited details of that assessment. Therefore, I can only attach limited weight to the matter.

The proposal’s location, land use and amount of development would be unsuitable having regard to the Council’s development plan strategy for housing, access to services and facilities, and the effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The Framework makes it clear that weight should be afforded to policies of the development plan according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. In this regard, the Framework seeks rural housing to be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, directing development towards locations with good access to services and facilities and ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised. The Framework also seeks mixed and balanced communities and development which is sympathetic to local character. As such, Policies ST01, ST07, ST10, ST17, DM06, DM08A and DM24 of the LP are broadly consistent with the Framework and the development plan policies can be given significant weight in this appeal.

The Council accept that they cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land. Even though the shortfall is modest, at 4.61 years, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out at Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework applies. In these circumstances, paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies which include, amongst other things, directing development to sustainable locations and securing well-designed places.

The benefits associated with the proposed development would be modest, even in the context of the Council’s housing land supply position. The proposal would be within walking distance of the very limited services in the settlement and future occupiers would, albeit to a limited extent, contribute to maintaining the services within the settlement. There would also be some limited opportunity to access services and amenities within Bideford via the infrequent bus service. Nonetheless, the proposal does not represent a suitable location for housing having regard to its effect on the landscape, relevant development plan policies and its spatial strategy, and future occupiers would be highly dependent on the use of private cars, which would not prioritise sustainable transport modes.

Consequently, the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.