Appeal 6000913

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the address above from the Council’s decision notice, and this reflects that used by the appellant in the appeal documents.

The application sought outline planning permission, with the matter of access for determination at this stage. While layout details have been provided, I have treated them as indicative only at this stage.

The main issues are: • Whether the location of the development is acceptable with regard to the locational strategy of the development plan and accessibility to services, • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, • Whether future occupiers would experience satisfactory living conditions, with particular regard to noise, and • The effect of the proposal on highway safety.

Policy CSP.4 of the Forest of [name] (the [name]) sets out that development will be expected to take place within existing settlement boundaries, and that areas outside of settlement boundaries will be treated as part of the countryside. Policy CSP.5 further re-enforces that development will be focussed to settlements and urban areas. This approach is also supported by policy AP 1 of the Forest of Dean Council Allocations Plan (the Allocations Plan) which aims to ensure that development is undertaken in a sustainable manner. Given the sites location outside of any settlement boundary, and therefore in the countryside, the proposal conflicts with the requirements of these policies.

The site is located along the A40 trunk road. There are bus stops a short distance to both the west and east that would seemingly be available for the use of future residents of the proposed dwellings. However, at the time of my site visit I walked to each of these bus stops, and while there are footways leading in both directions, these are located directly alongside the A40 road. This is a busy and fast section of road, which I observed is frequently used by large volumes of traffic, as well as heavy vehicles, both moving at speed. It appeared to me to be an unattractive proposition to frequently walk along these footways to access public transport, which in my view would discourage residents from doing so. Moreover, there is no streetlighting along this stretch of road, which would also discourage residents from walking along the footway in hours of darkness, notwithstanding that there would be some lighting provided from the passing traffic.

Furthermore, it would also be a particularly unattractive option to walk along this stretch of road in inclement weather, where in addition to rain it would be necessary to contend with the spray generated from what could be a significant volume of passing traffic. While it would therefore be possible for residents to utilise nearby sustainable transport modes, even though they would need to cross the road that is subject to a 50 miles per hour speed limit, I consider that it would be unlikely that residents would choose to do so given the shortcomings and disadvantages of the journey that I outline above. Consequently, residents would be highly likely to rely on the use of the private car in order to access services.

Thus, the location of the development is not acceptable with regard to the locational strategy of the development plan and accessibility to services, and the proposal would conflict with policies CSP.4 and CSP.5, as well as policy AP 1.

The appeal site is located adjacent to a busy highway and currently comprises grassed paddocks. It is set back from the road behind a wide grassed verge and enclosed by a mature hedge, and behind the site is an area of woodland. There are buildings present and visible along this stretch of the road within the vicinity of the site, most notably there is a dwelling positioned opposite. Further to the west there are also additional dwellings, while to the east is a public house, with dwellings beyond.

However, notwithstanding the presence of built development within the immediate and wider vicinity, the appeal site currently has an attractive, undeveloped appearance. It contributes to the rurality of the area and supports the characterisation of the area as one being interspersed with built development and more open spaces. This positively reinforces the rural nature of the locality and serves to set it apart from more built-up locales, such as that which can be seen in the nearby settlement of Huntley.

The introduction of up to four dwellings would erode the contribution that the site makes to the countryside at this location. Whilst, further to my description of the site above, it can not be described as open countryside due to its visual containment by existing features or isolated due to the proximity of other buildings, it nonetheless is a positive undeveloped feature of the countryside landscape. The proposed development would intrude into the countryside, creating a ribbon of development that would be at odds with the setting of the site and thus it would appear as an intrusive and insensitive addition.

Accordingly, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and thus it conflicts with policy CSP.1 of the [name] and policy AP4 of the Allocations Plan. Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development respects the characteristics of the environment and makes a positive contribution to the design quality of an area.

The appeal site’s location adjacent to the A40 trunk road means that development at this location would be susceptible to noise impacts from traffic. Both the Council and National Highways have raised concern in this respect. The appellant had undertaken an acoustic assessment in order to attempt to demonstrate that noise impacts can be successfully mitigated.

In respect of external noise, the acoustic assessment demonstrates that noise levels within the majority of the external garden areas of the dwellings would be above the 50-55 decibel range that should “ideally” be adhered to. Even with the inclusion of a 2.4-metre-high boundary fence between the garden areas and the highway, noise levels would be above this level. The only areas that would be below this level would be areas that, as shown on an indicative layout of the development, are directly behind and in close proximity to the rear elevation of each dwelling. Such areas are already constrained by the need to provide a buffer between the development and the woodland to the rear and, as a result, the garden areas that would be subject to acceptable noise levels would be extremely limited in their extent.

Given that these would be the only areas that would provide respite from the traffic noise and allow for pleasant outdoor seating, for example, they would not in my view provide an adequate amount of space for occupiers. Moreover, residents would be forced to congregate in a very limited area of their gardens. Therefore, living conditions for the future occupiers of the development would be severely restricted.

In regard to internal noise levels, the façade of the properties facing the A40 would be subject to noise. The acoustic assessment outlines that habitable rooms facing the A40 should be minimised but accepts that inevitably there will be some habitable rooms that will face this road. In order to achieve acceptable noise levels for any habitable rooms that face the road, it would be necessary for acoustic glazing units to be installed, as well as a ventilation system. This is because unacceptable noise levels would be experienced, during both the daytime and nighttime, if windows were to be opened. However, keeping windows closed at all times would be unlikely and would place an unreasonable restriction on occupiers. As such, I find it likely that occupiers would seek to open windows for ventilation and if so, they would experience unsatisfactory noise levels.

While there are existing residential properties that are located along the A40, those are existing circumstances and I am particularly aware that the submitted information shows that there would be unacceptable noise levels experienced at the proposed properties. Additionally, I note comments from the appellant in respect of their nearby commercial premises, which includes accommodation, that there have been no complaints in respect of noise. However, I note that the layout and situation of that premises differ from that in the proposed development. As such, the presence of existing properties and the lack of issues experienced at the nearby commercial premises do not dissuade me from my findings above.

Therefore, I find that future occupiers would not experience satisfactory living conditions, with particular regard to noise. The scheme therefore conflicts with policy CSP.1 of the [name] and policy AP4 of the Allocations Plan. Together, and amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that development makes adequate pollution mitigation and that the amenity of residents is respected.

Vehicular access to the proposed development would utilise the existing field access point. National Highways responded to consultation initially commenting that matters relating to traffic impact, site access arrangements, drainage, landscaping, and noise needed further consideration.

In terms of traffic generation, the Council outlines that the local highway authority consider that this can be accommodated without severe impact on the highway network. Furthermore, I note that National Highways have approved the design departure for the details of the access. I have addressed matters relating to noise above.

It would therefore appear that the outstanding matters in respect of highway safety relate to surface water drainage arrangements, and landscaping in regard to the verge alongside the highway. These are matters that are capable of being dealt with by planning condition should planning permission be forthcoming. As such, subject to appropriate conditions, the development would not result in harm to highway safety at this location. Thus, there would be no conflict with policy CSP.1 of the [name] or policy AP4 of the Allocations Plan, insofar as they seek to ensure that development is served by adequate infrastructure and results in safe environments.

It is common ground that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The lack of a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites results in the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as envisaged by paragraph 11 of the Framework being engaged.

The scheme would conflict with policies within the development plan in respect of the location of the development, accessibility to services, the effect on the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of future occupiers.

The scheme would result in the delivery of four dwellings toward housing supply, which would result in both social and economic benefits. However, given the scale of the development, these benefits would be modest in their extent.

Accordingly, in my judgement the negative factors resulting from the proposals, which include conflict with locational policy, lack of practical and appealing access to services by non-car modes of travel, harm to the character and appearance of the area, and unsatisfactory living conditions for future residents, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Thus, the planning balance indicates that a decision should not be taken other than in accordance with the development plan.

I have been referred to a Permission in Principle permission that has been granted by the Council which it has been contended is comparable and directly relatable to the appeal scheme and which sets a precedent for approval. However, that site was located to the west, reducing the distance required to walk along, what I have found to be, an unattractive route for pedestrians. Moreover, the context of that site is different in terms of its relationship to existing development. As such, this previously granted permission is not directly comparable and thereby does not lead me to alter my findings.

I note comments that the site was included in the Council’s 2021 [name] and Economic Land Availability Assessment. However, I do not have the full details of this document before me, and I do not know on what basis such an assessment took place. Nonetheless, I have assessed the development proposals on their merits in light of the specific details of the scheme and found them to be unacceptable. As such, the inclusion of the site in this assessment does not lead me to find differently than I have above.

My attention has been drawn to examples where development has been permitted in a nearby settlement of Minsterworth. However, that locality lies within a different Council area, differs in context from the area surrounding the appeal site and proposed developments would be considered under different development plan policies. Moreover, I do not have the full details of the considerations that led to those developments being permitted. Therefore, while there may be superficial similarities which the appellant points to, I do not have full information that would allow me to draw any useful comparisons.

The Council highlight that the appeal site lies within 4 kilometres (km) of the nearest component of Wye Valley and Forest of Dean Bat Special Area of Conservation, with a functionally linked bat roost approximately 2km from the site. The site lies within a highly sensitive area and core sustenance zone for bat roosts. [name] were minded to allow the appeal it would be necessary to undertake an Appropriate Assessment, to ascertain if the development would result in any likely significant effect. It would then be necessary to consider what, if any, mitigation would be necessary. From the Council’s AA it is likely that sufficient mitigation could be implemented for any significant effect. In any event, as I have found harm above sufficient to dismiss the appeal, the development subject of this appeal will not take place and thus there would be no resultant effect on these designated areas. As such, I have no need to consider this matter further.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed.