Appeal 6000902

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for erection of 3no. dwellings (outline: access only) at [site address] , Nuneaton, Warwickshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2023/0324, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for a full award of costs was made by [name] against the decision of North Warwickshire Borough Council. This application will be the subject of a separate decision.

The planning application was submitted in outline with approval sought for access only. The matters of layout, appearance, scale, and landscaping are reserved for later and I have determined the appeal on this basis. I have had regard to the indicative site plan (drawing Ra 3358 s3 002 rev c) but only as far as it is an illustrative indication of the appearance and size of the dwellings proposed.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst changes to the structure and wording are proposed, these could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issue is whether the appeal proposal would be an appropriate site for development having regard to its position in relation to other housing and its access, and the effect of the development on highway safety, having particular regard to the access being through a car park and visibility.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of land to the rear of, and accessed through, the car park to the [site address] public house (the pub) and the two houses which front [site address] . The pub itself sits on the corner of [site address] and [address], its car park is further along [site address] , separated from the pub by dwellings in separate ownership. The car park is accessed directly off [site address] and provides 20 spaces. At the time of my visit, which was during a weekday when the pub was open, the spaces were marked out but the marking was feint.

Policy H1 of the Mancetter Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2029 (the MNP) supports development on previously developed land inside the settlement boundaries for Mancetter and [site address] subject to five criteria. The relevant criteria to the appeal site is that tandem development should have direct highway frontage access. Previously developed land is defined in the glossary to the MNP and is consistent with the definition in the Framework in that it is land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land. Tandem development is also defined in the glossary to the MNP as dwellings immediately behind an existing residential frontage, which are served by a shared access.

The appeal site is within the settlement boundary of [site address] . It is owned by, associated with, and part of the curtilage of the public house. Although it does not contain any permanent structures that are to be redeveloped, at the time of my visit, it was rough grassland within the curtilage of a permanent structure. I, therefore, find that the appeal site is previously developed land when assessed against the MNP and the Framework.

However, although the appeal site is, in part, immediately behind existing residential houses and does not itself have a direct frontage access, it would not be served by an access shared with the frontage houses. The access to the appeal site would be shared but with the car park to the public house. It, therefore, is not strictly tandem development as defined in the glossary of the MNP.

For these reasons, I find that the appeal site would not be in conflict with Policy H1 of the MNP. Although the proposal would not include a new access, the development would also comply with the thrust of Policy SB.1 of the MNP in providing a small scale development of new housing within [site address] .

Nevertheless, the appeal site is accessed through an existing car park, which is restricted in width, and access is in an area where on-street parking is prevalent due to the houses on the same side of the road being terraced properties with no off-street parking. Policy LP29 of the North Warwickshire Local Plan 2021 (the LP) seeks to ensure that all development provides safe and suitable access to the site for all users.

At the time of my visit there were only a few vehicles parked in the car park. However, I accept that at weekends and busier times the car park may be full and overspilling onto the road. Although it is not possible to reverse into or out of a space in a single manoeuvre it is possible to use the parking spaces without conflicting with other parked vehicles. The car park is existing and I have no compelling evidence that it is not operating successfully and that vehicles are not able to manoeuvre within it. The photographs submitted by the Parish Council show the car park full without any evidence of vehicle conflicts. Furthermore, the submitted plans confirm that the car park is wide enough to provide parking spaces on both sides and 4.5 metres between, to enable access to the appeal site. The first section of the access through the car park would be widened to allow two vehicles to pass so as to reduce the need for vehicles to have to wait on the highway.

I accept that long-wheeled base vans, including the one I saw at my visit, would reduce the ability of a vehicle parked opposite to manoeuvre out of a space and also reduce the width between the parked vehicles for cars to access the appeal site. However, the appellant would be within their rights to prevent large vehicles from using the car park to ensure that space is retained for access to the appeal site and the presence of larger vehicles is not a reason to refuse the appeal. In my judgement, the car park is adequately sized to accommodate the parking spaces for the pub and provide access to the appeal site. Vehicle movements within the car park would be slow and there are already pedestrian movements associated with the parked vehicles. Therefore, the use of the car park would not result in unacceptable pedestrian access for the development, including access for residents to move bins to the proposed bin collection point.

The number of vehicle movements associated with three dwellings would not be significant, especially given the vehicle movements associated with the 20 parking spaces in the pub car park. The appeal proposal would not substantially increase the use of the access from the car park onto [site address] and the vehicle movements from the appeal proposal would be indistinguishable from the car park movements. Moreover, the appeal proposal would provide an appropriate level of car parking and turning space within the site for the three properties proposed, including space for turning of delivery vehicles.

I am aware from the evidence and my visit that on-street parking is prevalent along the same side of [site address] as the car park. Interested parties’ comments also advise that parking stress is increased when there are events on at the pub or football matches at the football field next to the appeal site, which does not appear to have its own car park. Furthermore, there are no parking restrictions preventing cars from parking immediately either side of the access to the car park. Visibility from the access is, therefore, limited.

Nevertheless, the access is already present and parking within the visibility splays of accesses can be acceptable where, as is the case for the appeal site, vehicle speeds are low. Although interested parties have suggested that vehicles often exceed the 30mph speed limit I have not been provided with any compelling evidence to confirm this and the evidence from the appellant’s traffic count suggests traffic is generally travelling within the speed limit. Interested parties have also referenced vehicle accident data and press articles noting issues. However, none of the incidents referred to related to the access from the car park to [site address] . I, therefore, have no compelling evidence that the access is unsafe.

My attention was also drawn to the location of the bus stop outside the appeal site which would also limit visibility. However, if vehicles are parked along the highway a stopped bus would block the carriageway rather than visibility. Moreover, a stopped bus would only restrict visibility for a short period of time. I have also been made aware of junction improvements to be carried out at the junction of [site address] with [address]. Though these may reduce the available on-street parking spaces immediately outside the pub these improvements would not conflict with the access to the appeal site.

For the above reasons, even though visibility from the access is limited, due to on-street parking, I find that the appeal proposal would be an appropriate site for development having regard to its position in relation to other housing and its access, and the effect of the development on highway safety, having particular regard to the access being through a car park and visibility. It would, therefore, comply with Policy LP29 of the LP and Policy H1 of the MNP which, taken together, seek to ensure that developments provide safe and suitable access to the site for all users and seeks to resist tandem development.

The Council has submitted an updated statement on the five year housing land supply calculations, referring to a Planning and Development Board Report dated October 2025. That report advised that the Council has a housing land supply of between 1.5 and 2.2 years, depending on whether the figure is calculated on the annualised housing requirement or the housing trajectory within the local plan. Either way the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Paragraph 11(d) therefore applies.

Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, I have found that the appeal proposal would not conflict with the policies in the local plan or the neighbourhood plan. It is, therefore, not necessary for me to undertake a planning balance.

Interested parties and the Parish Council have also raised concerns regarding matters including, but not limited to, the effect of the development on the pub, the lack of facilities in the village, loss of wildlife habitat, the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to loss of outlook and noise, and the effect of the development on the recreation ground and play area.

[site address] is identified as a settlement where new housing development is acceptable and the site lies wholly within the settlement boundary. That there are limited facilities in the village, including limited public transport, has been considered in identifying the village as a Category 4 settlement in the LP and additional housing is required across the borough as a whole, especially given the current position on the five year housing land supply.

The car park is to be retained with the same number of parking spaces and, therefore, would not affect the longevity of the pub. A noise impact assessment is recommended as a condition to ensure that the future occupants of the development are not adversely affected by the operation of the pub. That interested parties would prefer to see the appeal site used for additional parking for the pub, local residents and users of the football field is not a matter that I can consider and is not what is before me. The submitted ecology report confirms that the site has limited ecological value and can be developed without harm to protected species. I also have no compelling evidence that the existing drainage system is not capable of accepting the additional flow from the development.

As an outline application I do not have the detail of the layout or position of window openings and the future reserved matters application would need to be designed so as to ensure that there is not unacceptable adverse effects on the living conditions of neighbouring properties. Although the proposed dwellings would overlook the recreation ground and play area this would not be any different to the current terrace houses which have rear elevations facing these spaces. Additional overlooking provides greater natural surveillance and would be a benefit rather than a harm.

The Council has provided a list of conditions and the appellant has had an opportunity to comment on this. I have considered them in light of the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance, and I have undertaken some minor editing and rationalisation in the interests of precision and clarity.

In addition to the standard timescale and other reserved matters conditions, I have also imposed conditions to require the access to be in accordance with the submitted location and site plans. However, I have not included the Council’s suggested condition to limit the height of the dwellings and to require the designs to compliment the surrounding properties. Such a condition is not necessary or reasonable as these details are reserved for later approval and the Council would be able to assess whether the heights and designs are acceptable as part of the reserved matters application.

Nevertheless, it is appropriate to impose a condition to require the ground levels and finished floor levels to be submitted as this information is not automatically part of the reserved matters and would have a bearing on whether the development respects the ground levels and heights of the surrounding area, in the interests of the character and appearance of the village.

Although landscaping is a reserved matter, I have imposed a condition to require the first reserved matters application to include details of the hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatments, so as to ensure that the development is appropriate for the context and character of the area. It is also reasonable and appropriate to require a tree protection plan to be provided so as to ensure the retention of existing trees, where possible and a condition to require the replacement of any trees within the first five years following completion of the development.

Given the existing condition of the site and its association with the pub it is wholly reasonable to impose a condition to require a contaminated land survey to be submitted and, if any contaminated land is found, to require mitigation and validation, so as to minimise the risk of contamination affecting the future occupants or the wider area. It is also appropriate to require the submission of a noise impact assessment and mitigation measures to ensure that the future occupants of the approved dwellings are not adversely affected by the presence and ongoing operations of the pub and its garden.

Due to the nature of the access to the site, through the public house car park, and due to the lack of on-street parking in the area, a condition to require a construction method statement is reasonable, even though the proposal is for a small-scale development.

A condition to require the details of the foul and surface water drainage to be submitted for approval is also required to ensure that the development is provided with appropriate drainage and to reduce the risk of increasing surface water flooding elsewhere. It is also reasonable and necessary to secure biodiversity enhancements to ensure that the development of the site would enhance retained habitat.

The access to the appeal site is approved as part of this outline application. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to impose conditions to require the pedestrian visibility splays to be provided and maintained, and for the access to be widened/remodelled in accordance with the approved plans, in the interest of highway and pedestrian safety. For the same reasons, it is also reasonable to restrict any gates from being erected within the first six metres of the access.

However, I have not imposed a condition to require the parking and turning areas to be laid out at this stage as these details have not been submitted for approval and would need to be secured as part of the reserved matters. I have also not imposed conditions to require the provision of bin storage or external lighting as these would form part of the reserved matters.

The Council suggested a condition to remove permitted development rights for extensions, alterations, and outbuildings, in the interests of the character of the area, including as viewed from the recreational grounds, and in the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Planning Practice Guidance advises that conditions should not be used to restrict such rights unless there is clear justification to do so. Even though the appellant has not objected to the condition, there is no compelling evidence that alterations and extensions permitted under the rights would harm the character of the area, the views from the recreation ground, or the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. I, therefore, find that there is no compelling reason to remove the permitted development rights and have not imposed the suggested condition.

Informatives are not added to appeal decisions. The appellant should be aware of these from the Council’s evidence and I have, therefore, not included them.

For the reasons given above the appeal scheme complies with the policies in the local plan and should, therefore, be allowed.

Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, ("the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the site location plan drawing Ra 3358 s3 001 and the access shall be in accordance with the details shown on drawing Ra 3358 s3 002 rev c.

No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If any contamination is found, no development shall take place until: • a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; • the site has been remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale; and • a verification report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the retained trees (the tree protection plan) and the appropriate working methods (the arboricultural method statement) in accordance with paragraphs 5.5 and 6.1 of [name] 5837: Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations (or in an equivalent [name] if replaced) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme for the protection of the retained trees shall be carried out as approved. In this condition "retained tree" means an existing tree which is to be retained.

No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until a [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall provide for: • the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; • loading, unloading and storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; • measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction, including wheel washing facilities; • site lighting and security measures; • delivery, demolition, and construction working hours; and • details of construction contacts and where these are to be displayed for view by the public. The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

No development shall commence until details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include: • boundary treatments, including for the boundaries of the shared areas; • hard surfacing materials, including for the access road, driveways, and parking areas; • minor artefacts and structures e.g. refuse or other storage areas, signs, etc.; • soft landscaping of the shared areas; and • site wide proposed tree planting. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is first occupied. The shared areas shall be managed and/or maintained in accordance with an approved scheme of management and/or maintenance.

No development shall take place until full details of the finished levels, above ordnance datum, of the ground floors of the proposed buildings, in relation to existing ground levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved levels.

No development shall take place until a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) detailing the internal and external noise levels arising from the use and activities at the public house premises has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include sound attenuation insulation and ventilation for the dwellings hereby approved to mitigate any unacceptable noise identified by the NIA. The sound attenuation works shall be completed before the dwellings are occupied and be retained thereafter.

No development shall take place until drainage works for disposal of surface water and foul drainage have been carried out in accordance with details which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: • additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and • a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted details of a scheme of biodiversity enhancements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include measures to enhance and manage the biodiversity value of onsite habitats and shall be broadly in accordance with the details in the SEED Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment, dated August 2023. The submitted scheme shall also include a method of communicating the purpose of such biodiversity enhancement measures to occupiers of the dwellings. The approved scheme shall be implemented so that physical measures are incorporated before the first occupation of each respective dwelling and thereafter retained and maintained in situ.

Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted pedestrian visibility splays, of 2.4 metres by 2.4 metres, shall have been provided and shall be retained free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6m in height thereafter.

Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted the existing access shall have been widened/remodelled in general accordance with approved plan RA 3358 s3 002 [name] and an H-bar marking shall have been laid out across the access in accordance with the Highway Authority’s specifications.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the dwellings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

No gates, barriers or means of enclosure shall be erected across the vehicular access, within 6 metres of the highway boundary. All such features erected beyond that distance shall be hung to open inward away from the highway. *** END OF CONDITIONS ***