The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 August 2022 by Hannah Ellison BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 September 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/A0665/W/22/3296851 The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley, Warrington, Northwich WA4 4EN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Punch Partnerships (PML) Limited against the decision of Cheshire West and Chester Council. • The application Ref 21/02067/FUL, dated 30 April 2021, was refused by notice dated 14 October 2021. • The development proposed is the erection of one detached dwelling (Use Class C3) on land to north of existing public house (Sui Generis), creation of access off Street Lane, with associated hard and soft landscaping, including the reconfiguration of the public house car park. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development above is taken from the planning application form.

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision A more accurate description is included in the decision notice and appeal form as ‘Erection of one detached dwelling and garage, creation of access off Street Lane, with associated hard and soft landscaping, including the reconfiguration of the public house car park’. The Council determined the proposal on this basis and so shall I. 3. Within its statement of case the Council confirms that it no longer wishes to defend the fifth reason for refusal which concerned ecology. I have proceeded accordingly. Main Issues 4. The main issues in this case are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposal on the character or appearance of the Lower Whitley Conservation Area and the setting of adjacent heritage assets; • Whether the appeal site represents a suitable location for the proposal; and • If found to be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/22/3296851 considerations and if so, whether this amounts to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Reasons Whether Inappropriate Development 5. This appeal concerns the car parking area and land associated with the Grade II listed public house, the Chetwode Arms. The proposed dwelling with garage would be sited on the existing overflow carpark to the north of the public house. 6. Policy STRAT 9 of the Cheshire West & Chester Council Local Plan (Part One) Strategic Policies (the CWCLP1) sets out certain types of development which may be permitted in the Green Belt, none of which relate to the appeal proposal. However, this policy also states that additional restrictions will apply to development in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 7. Paragraph 147 of the Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 149 of the Framework establishes that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision There are exceptions to this general restriction and paragraph 149 e) advises that the construction of new buildings comprising limited infilling in villages may not be inappropriate. 8. There is agreement between the main parties that the appeal site is located within the village of Lower Whitley. Therefore, consideration must be given to whether or not the proposal would constitute limited infilling. 9. The Framework does not define ‘limited infilling’ however the development plan provides a useful definition of infill as the filling of a small gap, up to two dwellings, in an otherwise built-up frontage in a recognised settlement. I agree that limited infilling is generally held to be the development of a small gap between existing buildings. 10. There is a vast range in the width of plots within close proximity to the appeal site. Narrower plots tend to extend further to the rear, whereas some of the wider plots are shallower in depth. The appeal site has a generous frontage along Street Lane however it narrows to a point at the rear. Collectively, these features give the site an overall smaller appearance, despite its larger frontage.

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision The size of the appeal site is therefore broadly commensurate with the various large plots along Street Lane and thus I consider it to be a small gap within this context. 11. The built form within Lower Whitley is readily apparent from the public realm and creates a strong linear layout. Although there are spaces between properties, typically created by their garden areas, these tend to not be of a considerable width. The existing development therefore has a relatively close relationship with one another and accordingly, I consider the frontage in this locality to be built-up. 12. Therefore, the proposed dwelling element of the proposal would constitute limited infilling in a village and thus is not inappropriate development. As it falls within the exception in paragraph 149 e) of the Framework, it is not therefore https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/22/3296851 necessary for me to go on to consider this part of the proposal against paragraph 149 g). 13. I now turn to the overflow carpark element of the proposal. Paragraph 150 of the Framework states that certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. One of these exceptions, at paragraph 150 b), includes engineering operations. Therefore, to ascertain whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development, an assessment of its effect on openness and the purposes of including the site within the Green Belt is required. 14. Paragraph 137 of the Framework states that a fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. When applying the concept of openness to the particular facts of a case, a number of factors are capable of being relevant, and openness might have a spatial as well as a visual aspect. 15.

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision The proposed overflow car park would be located behind the public house and would be accessed from the reconfigured existing car park. When the car park would not be occupied by any vehicles, although a vast proportion of it would largely be positioned behind the existing public house and proposed hedgerow it would nevertheless be partly visible from public vantage points and would also be prominent from within the existing car park. 16. Although it has been described as an overflow car park, there is no conclusive evidence before me to indicate that it would not regularly be used. It is therefore reasonable to assume that cars could be parked for lengthy durations or indeed the car park may be consistently full, with cars coming and going. 17. Furthermore, the car park would be laid in gravel and would extend the existing hardstanding to the south west in an area which is a currently undeveloped, natural and open part of the Green Belt. This would result in encroachment to the countryside, albeit to a limited degree, and a reduction in the openness of this part of the Green Belt, whether it would be used by none, one or many vehicles. 18.

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Taking all the above into consideration, the proposal would result in both visual and spatial intrusion into the openness of the Green Belt and would conflict with one of the five purposes of the Green Belt in paragraph 138 of the Framework. Accordingly, the car park would fail to preserve openness thus the proposal would comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Character and Appearance 19. The appeal site is located within the Lower Whitley Conservation Area (the CA) whose significance is largely derived from its former farming association, collection of historic buildings set in generous plots and prevalence of mature hedgerow boundaries, all of which collectively contribute towards a leafy, spacious and rural character. 20. Despite the appeal site’s somewhat neglected appearance, due to its spacious nature and positioning within the locality, it reflects the rural characteristics of the CA and makes an important contribution towards its significance. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/22/3296851 21. The proposed dwelling would be a large, detached property however it would be commensurate with the size of its plot and thus would reflect the general layout of the locality. Materials would also take reference from nearby built form. 22. Notwithstanding this however, the dwelling would be a bulky, single mass under a consistent roof line, giving it a strong linear form. It would also have a symmetrical appearance which would be flat and uninspiring, lacking any meaningful reference to nearby buildings. Its limited articulation, along with its obtrusive mass, would result in a dwelling which would fail to reflect the varied roofscapes, projecting elements, whether original or ad hoc, and interest and variety in the fenestration of buildings in the locality. Overall, it would therefore fail to reflect the rural characteristics of the area. 23. Although the proposed detached garage would be single storey and thus a subordinate feature, it would nevertheless add further to the extensive linear massing and thus would fail to overcome the above concerns. 24. The introduction of additional hardstanding for the proposed overflow car park would be apparent from the public realm.

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Due to this visibility and the resultant overall coverage of the car parking area, this element would be an intrusive addition to the countryside location and reduce the green attributes and spaciousness of the CA. 25. The proposed site plan indicates that the only gap along the frontage of the appeal site would be from the proposed driveway access. This loss of green boundary, along with some trimming back of existing vegetation, would be limited. However, I am concerned that the actual effect of the proposal on the existing mature boundary along Street Lane would be greater given the requirements to provide visibility splays and a footpath, as requested by the Council’s highway consultee. As such, the proposal would also detract from the rural appearance of the street scene. 26. The appeal site is adjacent to the grade II listed Chetwode Arms, which has historic significance as a rural public house and is also noteworthy for its traditional architecture. It is when viewed immediately opposite the front elevation which one can make a full appreciation of its significance, taking into consideration the wider village and countryside setting. 27.

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision From this viewpoint, there is a lack of intervisibility between the asset and the appeal site, given the curve in the highway, orientation and forward positioning of the public house. Once beyond the asset towards the appeal site, and on the approach from the north, the proposed building would be set back within its plot, beyond the rear elevation of the Chetwode Arms and it would be offset by a generous amount. The proposed development would not therefore visually detract from or compete with the significance of the listed building. As such, the primary views and understanding of the Chetwode Arms would be unaffected by the proposed development. The proposal would therefore have a neutral effect on, and thus preserve, the setting of the listed building, in accordance with Policy DM47 of the CWCLP2. 28. Immediately opposite the appeal site is Chetwode Cottage which is a locally listed building of traditional proportions and appearance. Despite the dominant scale and massing of the proposal, it’s set back within its plot and the intervening road would ensure that the proposal preserves the significance of https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/22/3296851 this non-designated heritage asset, thus according with Policy DM48 of the CWCLP2. 29. Taking all the above into consideration, and given the scale of the development in context, the proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA as a whole. The Framework is clear that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, irrespective of the level of harm and, where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 30. The proposal would provide a new dwelling and there would be some accompanying benefits associated with the investment and employment in the construction of the dwelling, from the spending in the local area and from future occupants. However, due to the small scale of the proposal, these benefits would be limited and would not therefore outweigh the identified harm to the CA, which carries great weight. 31. Accordingly, the proposed dwelling would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA.

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision It would therefore conflict with Policies ENV5 and ENV6 of the CWCLP1 and Policies DM3 and DM46 of Cheshire West & Chester Council Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies (the CWCLP2). Collectively these policies, along with chapter 16 of the Framework, seek to ensure that developments respect local character and preserve the historic environment. Whether Suitable Location 32. The appeal site is not located within any key or local service centres listed within the development plan. As such, it falls within the countryside, where Policy STRAT 9 of the CWCLP1 seeks to restrict development to that which requires a countryside location and which cannot be accommodated within identified settlements in order to protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the Cheshire countryside. 33. This policy goes on to note the types of development which would be permitted. The proposal would fail to meet any of these exceptions, including the proposed overflow car park which, whilst it may facilitate the growth of an established business, it would nevertheless harm the character of the area as I have identified above. 34.

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Policy DM19 of the CWCLP2 goes on to provide more detail on residential development in the countryside and requires that proposals meet one of a number of criteria. The proposal also fails to meet any of these exceptions. 35. The appellant has sought to demonstrate why Lower Whitley should be a local service centre, based on the methodology used for the local plan. I note that some of the identified local service centres appear to have similar provision of services, facilities and public transport to Lower Whitley. Nevertheless, I do not know the full circumstances of those settlements, including the exact levels of accessibility to their services and facilities and whether Lower Whitley is directly comparable. 36. Regardless, whether Lower Whitley should be classed as a local service centre or not is not a matter for me within the context of this appeal, and it remains that the proposal is not within an identified settlement and thus fails to meet https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/22/3296851 any of the specified exceptions for residential development within the countryside. 37. Whilst Lower Whitley has a school and a village hall, these are a considerable distance from the appeal site and pedestrians would have to walk significant lengths along unlit roads which lack footways. This would be an unappealing journey to do on foot, particularly in inclement weather and throughout the winter months. With regards to the rural shuttle service, this is extremely infrequent, running just one day a week. Taking these matters together, future residents would likely have a high dependency on private motor vehicle to access everyday shops and services further afield. 38. Therefore, the appeal site is an unsuitable location for the proposal, due to its conflict with the spatial development hierarchy of Policies STRAT1, STRAT2 and STRAT9 of the CWCLP1 and Policy DM19 of the CWCLP2 which collectively seek to ensure that residential proposals are directed to identified settlements to promote sustainable communities which have good accessibility to shops, services and facilities. 39.

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision It would also conflict with the social objectives of the Framework, including at paragraph 8 b) which seeks to ensure that homes are provided with accessible services that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being, amongst other things. Accordingly, the policies of the CWCLP1 and the CWCLP2 are consistent with the Framework thus, in accordance with paragraph 219 of the Framework, which states that existing policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of the Framework, I afford the aforementioned policies full weight. Other Considerations 40. The proposal would result in some social and economic benefits, which are noted above. As I have found, given the scale of these benefits, I afford them limited weight in favour of the proposal. Whether Very Special Circumstances Exist 41. Paragraph 147 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Paragraph 148 states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 42. The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, would conflict with one of its purposes and would cause moderate harm to its openness. I afford this Green Belt harm substantial weight. I have also found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, including the significance of the CA, and that it would not represent a suitable location for housing. I collectively afford these harms significant weight. 43. Consequently, the limited benefits do not clearly outweigh the harm I have identified and thus the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist. As such, the proposal would fail to accord with Policy https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/22/3296851 STRAT9 of the CWCLP1 and Policy DM19 of the CWCLP2, along with the aims of protecting the Green Belt as set out in the Framework. Conclusion 44. The proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and the other considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

The Chetwode Arms, Street Lane, Whitley , Cheshire, WA4 4EN — Cheshire West and Chester — H Ellison INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7