Greenbelt 'infill' planning permission - HELP

kbaxter73

I hope someone can help! We have a plot of land to the side of our house that is part of our garden and is big enough for a 4 bedroom detached house (c1900 sq ft). Unfortunately we live in the greenbelt and live on the outskirts of a washed over village (Guilden Sutton, Chester). There are rules allowing infill development in washed over villages but as we are 0.75miles from the built up village centre is this going to rule us out of getting planning permission? Before we fork out c£3k on plans and applying for permission, is there any point? Most things we have read are not entirely clear with some saying definitely not and others saying we might. If anyone has any views or could offer any advice, I would really appreciate it. Many thanks in advance.

daveyjp

Authorities now operate a 'pre application advice' service. For a single house you will probably just need a site plan or Google Earth image and a cheque for a lot less than £3,000.

They will consider your proposal and indicate wether you are likely to get permission for a single dwelling.

System

this is one case where I wouldn't go to the planning department with a site plan and say you want to put a house there - you need to have a reasoned argument which fits in with the local plan before talking to them otherwise its usually a fairly negative or completely non committal discussion, i.e. you'll never get permission or you might get permission if you can do x y z.
My opinion is that it would be best to approach someone to at least sketch out something with the local plan in mind and start discussions with the planners that way - there is no need to go straight in with a full application but at the same time, going in with nothing won't help either.
Also it's not uncommon to have a deal where you agree that you don't pay the architect until planning permission is granted (although some won't agree to that!)

planning_officer

This should actually be quite straightforward. Either a new house is acceptable in principle here, or it isn't. I've just had a look at your Local Plan at http://maps.cheshire.gov.uk/cwac/localplan/

Your village is clearly in the Green Belt, as you say. I think the issue here is partly because the Local Plan predates the most recent national planning policies, set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF contains more Green Belt policies - and ones that are more up to date than the Local Plan.

The idea of 'washed over villages' in the Green Belt came from PPG2, which was the previous Government guidance on Green Belts - which no longer exists (it was replaced by the NPPF). The NPPF does not refer to the notion of washing over villages and merely states that limited infilling can be acceptable, under policies set out in the Local Plan. However, your Local Plan states (at para 3.251) that, "the Council does not want to see any more development on the east and southeast sides because this would absorb the adjoining villages of Guilden Sutton, Littleton and Christleton into the city. In addition to the Green Belt aspect, the Council considers that the land to the northeast, east and south of Chester is attractive countryside which needs to be protected from development on environmental grounds and to safeguard its ecological interest."

So it sounds like your Council is pretty resistant to infilling in your village. However, there are issues relating to this, as the NPPF is more up-to-date than the Local Plan. This is definitely a case where I think a pre-application enquiry would help you understand the issues involved. It may cost £100-200 or so, but that's much cheaper than a full application or an outline application. A least then you'd get an idea of what policies they are relying on and if you think there are other issues for them consider, you will be able to make a better argument under a proper planning application.


PS your Local Plan link is here: http://consult.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/portal/cwc_ldf/old_lp/c_lp?pointId=s1368785590431#s1368785590431 (I have no idea how to shorten links on this forum!)

kbaxter73

Many thanks all. In relation to 'planning officers' post specifically, there have been recent instances of infill being allowed in the village (13/04294/FUL being an example), but these have all been within the built up centre of the village, whereas we are on Hare Lane, which is some 0.75miles from the centre (we are amongst a small row of houses on this road), so I would be very confident were we in the built up centre, but have serious doubts given we are some way from this area, although I cannot seem to find a map showing where the built up area of the village ends. Some planning consultants who we have spoken to said you could come from the sustainable development angle, as it is well within a mile of shop and bus stops etc, but not sure how much weight this is going to hold and worry that the planners will just say no as we are not in the centre of the village and thus the infill policy does not apply...but as you say, the local plan is out of date, so does the NPFF allow this in any part of the greenbelt or is the sustainable development angle a reliable one?
Again, any opinions and advice would be gratefully received.

System

Whilst what planning_officer says is correct in procedure, I would say - based on experience - that going for a pre app with just a site plan will get you no further forward than what a planning consultant/architect etc would be able to advise...
I have got much more out of the preapplication process when I have presented a (sketch) scheme which illustrates a sound understanding of the restrictions on the site and how a proposal could meet planning policy.
I have also had preapplication guidance saying some schemes didn't meet planning policy and it gives you the opportunity to amend/redesign/argue before submitting a formal application - going in with nothing is a waste of time. But if you've spoken to planning consultants I'm sure they would have told you what the opportunities are

planning_officer

kbaxter73 wrote: »

Many thanks all. In relation to 'planning officers' post specifically, there have been recent instances of infill being allowed in the village (13/04294/FUL being an example)

That's very useful - I've just read the Officer's report justifying the new dwelling (actually under a previous application, reference 11/02870/FUL (the 2013 permission was just an amendment to the design, so it doesn't really address the principle of development)).

Anyway, the 2011 permission refers to Policy HO6 of the Local Plan which I hadn't spotted before (entitled "Infill development in 'washed over' villages in the GB"). This basically says that new infill dwellings are ok in certain villages, Guilden Sutton being one, subject to the criteria in Policy HO4 being met.

Policy HO4 states that:
Within the built-up envelope of towns and villages infill development defined as the construction of one or two dwellings in a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage will be permitted subject to the following criteria being met:

• it is well sited and designed in relation to existing buildings and the overall character of the area and will not appear obtrusive or over-intensive
• it is complementary to the character of the existing built environment and has regard to local distinctiveness, vernacular styles and materials
• it is complementary to the natural environment and has regard to the pattern of planting or open space, including hedging, walling or other boundary treatments
• satisfactory provision is made for access and parking
• it makes provision for satisfactory separation between properties and provides adequate private open space

This plot that was granted permission is near the centre of the village and the report just says it's in character with the area, so is basically ok. I can only guess that in the case of your site on the edge of the village, the Council may be saying that it does not comply with some of the points in Policy HO4. Whilst the principle of infill development may be acceptable, it might be that it is not well sited in relation to the overall character of the area (if the area is less intensively built up than the centre of the village).

Personally, I hear the sustainable development argument all the time. There is much more to sustainable development than many planning consultants seem to think. Whilst the NPPF does refer to infill developments in the Green Belt, it also sets out that there are several strands to sustainable development, one being environmental. So if something is not in character with the local rural area and is damaging to the local environment as a result, it is not sustainable. Sustainability is much more than just being near a bus stop and shop, so personally I think those consultants are clutching at straws. Yes, they are relevant points, but they're not going to outweigh a major objection to the siting of the dwelling.

I've just had a look at Google maps of Hare Lane and it actually does seem a way away from the village - it doesn't really even appear as part of the village at all, more of a row of houses in the countryside. Gaps and fields between houses are important in such areas, as they allow the area to feel part of the countryside rather than a solid row of suburban houses. So I think the Council are probably saying that a new infill house is not in keeping with the very rural character of the area perhaps? Also, from a quick look at the aerial photography on Google, I could only see one house where it looked like there was sufficient room for a new dwelling to the side (next to the railway) - there might be a possibility to pursue your argument if you're that one, and try to convince the Council that an infill plot there isn't out of keeping, but I'm not convinced anywhere else on Hare Lane unfortunately. (Edit: Since posting, I've just looked up the planning history of that property too, and from a planning application in 1984, the 'gap' between the house and the neighbour is marked as a field, not garden land - it still looks like a field now too, from Google Streetview, so infilling that with a dwelling would probably have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area too, thereby possibly not complying with Policy HO4).

Having said all that, if you want to pursue this idea, it's worth a pre-app to find out in writing exactly what the Council's objections are - then you have a basis for arguing your case under a formal planning application. Otherwise, I'm only guessing at their reasons for not being keen.

kbaxter73

Thanks again for taking the time to respond (and do your research) and offer your views. One point to note, is our house is further along Hare Lane than the railway (it is past BelleVue Lane and is the second to last house on that row of houses (with open fields opposite), where you will hopefully see there is a largish side plot next to our house (Ashley House). I would like to think that as the plot is between2 houses on a row of about 10-12 other houses and there are open fields front and back that it would not be classifed as having a negative impact on open countryside, but who knows with planners! There have been quite a few individual and multiple plot approvals in the main part of the village over the last couple of years, and actually further along Hare Lane there is an industrial unit that has been given approval to be demolished and replaced with a detached house and 2 semis (in a very small plot, but acknowledge it is much easier to get planning in such a circumstance where a dwelling already exists), so the council do not appear to have definite black and white views, I just worry that there may be just too many things against our plans which means they refuse the application and then any subsequent appeal (the natural pessimist in me, I guess!). Thanks again for all your help and views and if there is anything else you can offer as advice given the above, it will be much appreciated.

planning_officer

No worries. It's actually not really about the Council having 'black and white views' - it's an assessment based on the specific site. It's just not possible to set out every single circumstance where a new house might be acceptable, as all plots differ - their size, width, type of neighbouring houses etc. So it's really an assessment by professional planning officers as to the impact on the locality.


In your case, I can't help feeling that a new house would look a bit squeezed in there, in that very rural row of buildings. Yes, some of the houses in that row look fairly close together, but not all of them, and even your neighbour has 4-5m of space to both sides of the house. It looks like it is that space around the buildings and the gaps that gives the area it's rural character. To fill in every gap would alter that. Also, as your house is towards the end of the row, the gaps get larger and the buildings start to blend into the countryside - if you were to squeeze in a new house, I think it might fundamentally alter that character.


I'm only guessing that's what the Council's issues might be and I'm playing devil's advocate a bit... they might not be as against it as you think - you'll only know for sure if you do a pre-app though.

kbaxter73

Thanks very much again for all your help and insightful views. I will let you know how we get on!!

kbaxter73

Just by way of an update, we unfortunately got our plans refused on the basis that the road is outside of the built up area of the village, as we suspected! Annoyingly, as Cheshire West and Chester have only just got the 5.5 year housing supply numbers they need (in August), had we submitted the plans 3 to 6 months earlier, we are likely to have got the permission on the basis of the sustainability argument!! Our only hope now is for one of the 'big boys' to argue and prove that the housing numbers are wrong and we will then appeal on this basis. There have been so many delays (we were due our decision on 22 Sept, but got it a month later!!), that there appears there is some doubt with the figures but as things stand the council are relying on them and basically turning any out of the ordinary permissions (i.e. greenbelt) down...so we are not alone. Thanks again for all the help. We are now trying to get permisssion for an extension on our existing house and may have similar green belt arguments thrown up against that too!!