Appeal 6000869

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner heading above, I have utilised the appeal site address from the decision notice, as this accurately describes its location. For clarity, the description of development in the banner heading is also taken from the decision notice, as it is replicated in the appellant’s appeal form.

The appeal submission includes a [name] (FSD). I have accepted this for consideration, as Hampshire & Isle of [name] and [name] (HIWFRS) have provided comments in respect of it, and this would not prejudice interested parties.

The criteria in the Planning Inspectorate’s guidance for determining this appeal by written representations is met. It can therefore be decided by this method, and a hearing is thus not required.

The main issue is whether the proposed dwelling would incorporate safe access arrangements, with particular regard to the emergency fire service.

The appeal site is located to the rear of existing dwellings and is within an established residential area. It is linked to a track running from the end of the [address] cul-de-sac. The proposed emergency fire service access route would use another route, via the private side access path within No [address]. The nearest fire hydrant is to the front of No 17, adjacent the public footway.

The FSD refers to installation of both sprinkler and water mist fire suppression systems. HIWFRS advises that misting is a more engineered and site-specific solution, and I agree that validation of such a system does not appear to form part of the FSD.

The appellant contends that the total hose-laying distance would be approximately 60m, which is the maximum permissible distance under [name] 9991:20241, if sprinklers are present. However, based on the submitted evidence, including the plans, this measurement does not appear to include a realistic hose route within the proposed dwelling, from its main entrance door to the furthest point of the dwelling. Having regard to the proposed floor plans, this internal route would be of significant additional distance beyond the indicated external route.

Additionally, the indicated hose route runs diagonally across the wide front driveway hardstanding of No 15. This section could therefore be obstructed by vehicles parked on this hardstanding, adding further length to the hose route. Furthermore, firefighting operations cannot be undertaken directly from the hydrant, and specific access to it could be restricted by vehicles parked on [address].

The above matters raise substantial uncertainty as to whether a 60m hose run distance to the furthest internal part of the proposed dwelling is achievable in practice. Although the comments from HIWFRS are not determinative, I nonetheless afford significant weight to the concerns that they have raised.

Whilst the installation of an [name] was recommended by HIWFRS, it stated that this may not be sufficient justification for excessive hose run distances. Bearing in mind that a 60m hose laying distance is the maximum allowance under BS 9991:2024, I view the proposed emergency fire service access route to be of excessive length. It is therefore inadequate as a safe access arrangement, even if sprinklers would be present.

A fire-resistant lobby is proposed within the new dwelling, which includes the staircase, and leads to the main entrance door. This however also includes a ground floor living area. I therefore agree with HIWFRS that this does not guarantee that the stairway will remain uncompromised in the event of fire originating in this living area. Whilst the dwelling would also be served by an alternative ground floor exit via the study room, the first floor would remain reliant on the stairway for a direct exit route. This layout therefore does not justify the proposed emergency fire service access route.

The FSD also refers to other safety measures namely in respect of construction methods, building fabric and fittings, and an automatic smoke detection alarm system. However, these measures do not mitigate the excessive access length that could potentially cause significant delay in the commencement of firefighting operations, which would increase risk of harm to human life and of damage to property. The evidence before me does not demonstrate that the probability of harm or residual risk in this regard is low, or acceptable.

The appellant has provided a [name] (UU) and a [name] of Easement, which require implementation and maintenance of the proposed emergency fire service access route. Even if I had found this route to be adequate, both the UU and the [name] of Easement define the “[name]” as containing only the side passage of No 15. This excludes the route beyond the front elevation of No 15 to the fire hydrant, and the rear route towards the proposed 1 Fire safety in the design, management and use of residential buildings. Code of practice ([name], published 27 Nov 2024) dwelling. In their current form, these legal mechanisms therefore do not adequately secure the proposed route in a sufficiently precise and enforceable manner.

It is also put to me that an enforceable planning condition could secure a fire service access route with adequate surfacing, drainage, gradient and maintenance. The appellant also suggests that a condition could secure a written fire safety compliance statement or certification from a qualified fire consultant or engineer, to confirm that the fire strategy measures, once implemented, would meet relevant fire access standards. However, even if the above conditions were pre-commencement to allow for further engagement with HIWFRS, given the distance of the required hose route, I do not have sufficient certainty that such conditions would deliver a safe and suitable emergency fire service access, or other safety mitigation.

Moreover, whilst I found during my site visit that the access route along the side of No 15 is paved and of adequate width, the access beyond this dwelling to the proposal site is restricted by a low retaining wall and, more significantly, by a rear outbuilding sited on higher land within No 15’s rear garden. This outbuilding is not included on the submitted plans and would have to be partially demolished to facilitate a straight-line hose route from the side of No 15 to the proposal site.

While the above physical constraints could be removed, there is insufficient clearance, surfacing and final land level details before me to discount the possibility that such works would amount to operational development requiring its own planning permission. I am thus not satisfied that this matter could have been resolved solely by planning conditions and/or legal mechanism, had I been minded to allow the appeal.

For the above reasons, I conclude that it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposal incorporates safe access arrangements in respect of the emergency fire service. The scheme therefore conflicts with Policy SDP1(i) of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review (LPR) (adopted 2015) which requires, amongst other things, development to not unacceptably affect the safety of the city and its citizens.

The appeal site is located close to the Solent and Dorset Coast Special Protection Area (SPA), the Solent and [name]/Ramsar site and the New Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC)/SPA/Ramsar site. As set out in the Council’s Habitats Regulations Assessment of the proposal, new residential development has the potential to harm the integrity of these [name] as a result of increased levels of nutrients from wastewater entering into the Solent water environment, and increased recreational usage associated with new residential developments.

The Council has suggested a pre-occupation Grampian condition to secure mitigation against wastewater nutrient impacts. The UU provided by the appellant seeks to secure mitigation against recreational impacts. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for another substantive reason, I am not pursuing the above matters further, as to do so could not lead me to a different decision.

It is put to me that the proposal site is unused and underutilised. However, it contains some development in the form of a parking area at the end of the [address] access track, and a wooden shed further within the site. The site also contains a number of trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order, which I found to have a collectively positive visual impact on the local environment. The existing use or condition of the site therefore does not justify allowing this appeal.

The scheme is designed to limit impacts in respect of overshadowing and privacy. Private vehicle access, on-site parking and bin storage arrangements would be adequate. The site is not within an area of known flood risk, and the proposal would provide a [name]. There is no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate a significant impact on local infrastructure, or that disabled access within the site would be prejudiced. [name] been minded to allow the appeal, appropriately worded conditions could have secured new landscaping and planting details, and protection measures for nearby trees.

The lack of harm or significant impact in respect of the above matters neither weigh in favour nor against allowing the appeal. It is put to me that the access route from [address] would be upgraded. Such improvements are however not included in the submitted plans and thus cannot be ascribed any positive weight.

The appellant engaged professional consultants at significant cost to prepare detailed technical documentation. I am also told that HIWFRS took over 60 weeks to respond to formal consultation. Multiple design revisions were made at the request of the Council to address officer and consultee feedback, which were positively received by the planning officer, who purportedly at one stage indicated an intention to approve the application.

I can understand how the above would have been frustrating for the appellant. I am however dutybound to make my own assessment of the proposal based on the relevant policy, evidence and site-specific circumstances before me. Issues regarding the application and communication process are matters for the appellant and Council, and have no bearing on my determination of this appeal.

I have found conflict with Policy SDP1(i) of the LPR. As public safety is one of the fundamental principles of the planning system, the appeal proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) aims to achieve safe places and safe living conditions. It also sets out that applications for development should ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. As due weight should be given to a development plan policy according to its degree of consistency with the Framework, I attach substantial weight to this conflict.

The Council has advised that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with a current supply of 2.85 years. I view this to be a significant undersupply. Paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is thus engaged by its footnote 8. I have not made a finding on whether there is potential for harm to the integrity of habitats sites, and there is nothing before me to indicate that the other policies in footnote 7 of the Framework are relevant in this case.

This planning balance is therefore undertaken with regard to Framework paragraph 11 d)ii. This sets out that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the Framework policies taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies including those for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, and securing well-designed places.

The dwelling would make a small contribution to the Council’s housing supply, within a sustainable urban location, and it would have a well-considered appearance. Small sites such as this can cumulatively make a meaningful contribution to supply. The dwelling would include energy reduction measures such as insulation, airtightness and low-energy lighting. Its floorspace and garden space would exceed the relevant national and local standards. I am also told that the southern roof slope would have potential to house solar panels, and that internal door and circulation widths are designed to meet [name] principles. Moderate weight is afforded to the economic, social and environmental benefits arising from the above.

In many instances, development of a “backland” plot could be described as an efficient use of land. I also accept that a blanket prohibition of development does not apply to backland locations in terms of access.

However, the proposed access and layout for the emergency fire service is not well-designed in terms of safety. Due to the level of risk for harm to human life and damage to property that I have identified, the adverse impacts of the proposal in this respect would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the relevant and key Framework policies taken as a whole. It would not therefore be the sustainable development for which the Framework indicates a presumption in favour.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations before me, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.