Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ

Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ — Lichfield District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 June 2022 by Jonathan Edwards BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 June 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/K3415/W/22/3292665 Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood WS7 0JZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Stuart Holt against the decision of Lichfield District Council. • The application Ref 21/00086/OUT, dated 15 January 2021, was refused by notice dated 16 December 2021. • The development proposed is described as outline application for the erection of 1no 4 bedroom dwelling. All matters reserved. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. My assessment is made on the basis that outline planning permission is sought with all matters reserved for future consideration. In line with paragraph 5(3) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the drawings show the area where the access to serve the development would be situated. I have taken this information into account. Main Issues 3.

Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ — Lichfield District Council — Appeal Decision The main issues are:- • whether the scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and policies of the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy 2015 (LPS); • whether the development would be in a suitable location having regard to the LPS policies and the Framework; and • if the development would be inappropriate, whether the 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 necessary to justify it. Reasons Whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt 4. LPS policy NR2 states that the construction of new buildings would be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, unless it is an exception as identified in the Framework. Under paragraph 149 (e) of the Framework, limited infilling in villages is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ — Lichfield District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/K3415/W/22/3292665 5. Despite its address, the appeal site lies in a small group of properties a significant distance beyond the defined boundaries of Hammerwich and Burntwood. This group is a separate and distinct settlement, away from the built up extent of Hammerwich with intervening open fields. This cluster includes no significant community facilities. Due to its small size, the separation from Hammerwich and the lack of services, I find the settlement does not constitute a village. As such, the proposal would not lie in a village. 6. Furthermore, I am unconvinced that the development would represent infilling. Dwellings lie immediately to the south of the site and on the opposite side of the road. However, there are no properties to the rear and the disused railway line to the north is largely overgrown and so visually forms part of the wider countryside. A nearby bridge over the disused railway is viewed in the same context of the site but this is seen as an addition to the road rather than a continuation of a built up frontage.

Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ — Lichfield District Council — Appeal Decision As such, the proposed dwelling would be perceived as an encroachment into the countryside beyond the extent of the settlement rather than the infilling of a gap in between other buildings. 7. A single house would represent limited development. However, for the above reasons, the proposal would not constitute infilling in a village and so it would not comply with paragraph 149 (e) of the Framework. 8. At paragraph 149 (g), the Framework defines partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land as not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This is subject to the proposal having no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than existing development. 9. The site once was used as a residential garden but it no longer forms part of the curtilage to a dwelling. The evidence indicates there is a small bomb shelter or pigsty on the plot although this was not visible on my visit as the site was overgrown. The definition of previously developed land as set out in the Framework excludes land where the remains of any permanent structure has blended into the landscape. Therefore, based on my observations, I do not consider the site represents previously developed land. 10.

Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ — Lichfield District Council — Appeal Decision In any event, the plans suggest the building on the site is small. Without any evidence that demonstrates to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that any 4 bedroom dwelling would be significantly larger in volume than the existing building. Accordingly, it would lead to a loss of spatial openness of the site, even though it would not encroach onto the field to the rear. 11. New planting added to existing boundary vegetation would help screen the development. Nevertheless, it is likely to be partially visible from the road through the access and gaps in planting. As such, the proposal would also lead to a loss of visual openness. Consequently, it would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the current situation and so it would not conform with paragraph 149 (g) of the Framework. A moderate level of harm to openness would be caused as only a single dwelling is proposed. 12. A new dwelling would be significantly different in form and visual impact than additions made to existing nearby properties. Therefore, these previous developments fail to influence my views on this main issue. 13.

Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ — Lichfield District Council — Appeal Decision The proposal would not conform with paragraphs 149 (e) or (g) and no case is made that it would fall under any of the other exceptions at paragraph 149 of https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ — Lichfield District Council — Appeal Decision The proposal would not conform with paragraphs 149 (e) or (g) and no case is made that it would fall under any of the other exceptions at paragraph 149 of https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ — Lichfield District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/K3415/W/22/3292665 the Framework. Therefore, I conclude the scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Suitability of location 14. LPS Core Policy 1 sets out a spatial strategy and identifies locations where the majority of future development is to be directed. In terms of rural locations, Core Policy 1 identifies 5 key settlements where new housing will mainly be directed. Also, the policy states smaller villages will accommodate housing to meet local needs. However, together with LPS Core Policy 6, it generally limits new residential development to sites in defined settlement boundaries. 15. The site lies outside any defined settlement boundary and there is no evidence to show the cluster of buildings is formally identified as a settlement where new housing would be acceptable. Furthermore, the proposal would not comply with any of the other acceptable forms of residential development in rural areas as set out under LPS Core Policy 6 or Policies Rural 1 and 2. Consequently, the scheme would conflict with the LPS spatial strategy. 16. The proposed house would be next to existing properties and so it would not be an isolated home in the countryside.

Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ — Lichfield District Council — Appeal Decision However, future occupants would need to travel to Hammerwich to access the nearest facilities. These are limited and separation distances means that it is likely that journeys would be by private car. Accordingly, it is likely that residents would travel to larger settlements such as Lichfield or Burntwood to access a broader range of services rather than rely on more local facilities. Therefore, the development would conflict with the Framework’s aim to locate new housing where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. As such, the development would not be in a suitable location having regard to LPS Core Policies 1 and 6 and Policies Rural 1 and 2 as well as the Framework. Other considerations 17. The details of the proposal are not before me but I am satisfied that a detached dwelling could be designed to fit in with the character and appearance of other nearby properties. Acceptability in these terms is a neutral factor rather than a benefit to which I attach positive weight. 18. The appellant claims the proposal provides the opportunity to improve damaged land.

Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ — Lichfield District Council — Appeal Decision The site is overgrown but the presence of natural vegetation means that it visually assimilates with the countryside and there is no evidence that the plot is contaminated. As such, the proposal would not result in any significant enhancement of the site or land. 19. The development would add to the housing stock and would generate construction employment. The benefits in these regards would be modest as only a single unit is proposed. Green Belt and planning balance 20. The Framework states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. These would only exist where the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The Framework dictates that substantial weight should be given to this harm in the balancing exercise. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ — Lichfield District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/K3415/W/22/3292665 21. As well as harm by reason of inappropriateness, the development would erode the openness of the Green Belt and so it would go against the fundamental aim to keep land open. The unsuitable location having regard to the LPS spatial strategy and the Framework also counts against the scheme. 22. On considering all relevant matters, I conclude that the proposal’s benefits and all other factors would not clearly outweigh the harm that would be caused to the Green Belt and the other identified harm. As such, very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist and so it would conflict with LPS policy NR2 and the Framework. Other Matter 23. The site lies within the zone of influence for Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC). As the competent authority, I am required under the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to consider the effects of the development on the integrity of the SAC. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, there is no need to carry out an assessment. A finding that the scheme would be acceptable in these regards would not affect my overall conclusion on the appeal. Conclusion 24.

Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ — Lichfield District Council — Appeal Decision For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.

Land at Station Road, Hammerwich, Burntwood, WS7 0JZ — Lichfield District Council — Jonathan Edwards INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4