Appeal 6001115

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for residential development of 5no. two storey dwellings at [site address] , [site address] , Stafford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/40694/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of development has been taken from the application form with matters which do not relate to acts of development removed.

An additional site section and street scene plan has been submitted with the appeal ([name] 2505/PL/05). Even though the Council did not have this plan when it determined the planning application, the layout and scale of the proposed development remain unchanged and, the Council had opportunity to comment on this as part of the appeal process. Also, having regard to the representations received in relation to the proposal, I consider there would be no procedural unfairness caused to any party by considering the additional plan in my determination of the appeal.

The appeal site is within the 15km zone of influence of the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) it is necessary for me, as the competent authority, to consider whether the proposal would have a likely significant effect on the integrity of the SAC.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on:  living conditions of [address], in particular regard to loss of outlook and overbearing impact caused by plot 5;  character and appearance of the surrounding area; and,  [name].

Proposed plot 5 is a two-storey end terraced dwelling with a blank side gable. It would be sited fairly close to the side boundary and set back of the rear elevation of [address] (No 8), some 10 meters distance away at the nearest point dwelling to dwelling, with the single garage of No 8 between. Also, the ground level of the appeal site is higher than that of No 8, with the land levels within the site rising from north to south, comparable with the general topography of the surrounding area.

In view of the position and change in land levels, even though plot 5 would not be directly in front of any windows in the side and rear of No 8, it would be prominently visible from its rear windows and garden. However, No 8 has a fairly large and long rear garden, with hedges along its side boundary and the appeal site is principally to the west of it. Also, as demonstrated from the site section and street scene plan, despite the change in ground levels, the overall height of plot 5 would not be significantly higher than No 8. Therefore, in view of the extent of rear garden of No 8 and the proposed scale and juxtaposition of plot 5 in relation to No 8, the proposed development would not significantly reduce direct sunlight nor cause harmful overshadowing of the rear windows and garden of No 8.

Furthermore, due to the size and depth of the rear garden of No 8, its intervening garage and boundary vegetation, the new dwelling at plot 5 would not harmfully dominate the rear garden and views from the windows of No 8. Additionally, due to the distance separation and angle between the side gable of plot 5 and rear elevation of No 8, and that existing dwellings to the rear of No 8 are some distance away, the proposed development would not create a harmful boxed-in or oppressive feel to the rear garden and windows of No.8. Therefore, even though the blank side gable of plot 5 would be higher than and prominent from the rear of No 8, the proposed development would not have a harmful overbearing effect on outlook from this neighbouring property. Consequently, there would be no detrimental effect caused to the living conditions of its occupiers.

Having regard to the above, the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of [address], in particular regard to loss of outlook and overbearing impact caused by plot 5. Therefore, no conflict would arise with Policy N1 of the Plan for Stafford Borough (June 2014) (PSB), which, amongst other matters, sets out that new development should be designed to take account of light implications, together with the amenity of adjacent residential areas.

The appeal site is within a residential area, surrounded by two-storey dwellings and their gardens. There are a mix of semi-detached and terraced pitched roof dwellings in the local area, some brick and some rendered, and the appeal site is a [site address] , although the garages are no longer present. Currently, there are areas of hardstanding, some overgrown vegetation and hedges within the site. Also, the land levels of the site and that of surrounding existing development rises from north to south.

The proposed development, comprising a row of two-storey, 3 No terraced properties and a pair of semi-detached dwellings would be comparable and in keeping with the scale and design of dwellings in the surrounding area. Also, even though the rear gardens of the new dwellings would be shorter than the surrounding long rear gardens of some nearby dwellings, the plot density and garden length would not be that different to existing dwellings along [address] at the rear of the site. Therefore, while the proposed development includes more dwellings and these would be two-storey as opposed to bungalows, compared to a previously approved scheme, it would not result in the overdevelopment of the site, harmful to the character and appearance of the local area.

The site levels rise up, and the proposed dwellings would be on a higher ground level than some immediately adjacent dwellings. However, as noted from my site observations, the ground levels of some existing nearby dwellings, principally along [address] and [address], are at even higher ground levels than the appeal site. Furthermore, the levels details on the proposed site section and street scene plan demonstrate that the proposed dwellings would not have an overall ridge height significantly higher than the closest dwelling at No 8. Therefore, in view of the additional section details, surrounding local topography and context, the proposed dwellings would be of appropriate scale and in keeping with the character and appearance of properties in the surrounding area.

Having regard to the above, the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Consequently, there would be no conflict with Policy N1 of the PSB, which requires development to have high design standards that take account of local character, context and density.

The qualifying feature of the SAC is heathland habitat, particularly its extent of [name] habitat, which is regarded as one of the best areas in the UK. The dry heathland supports populations of several scarce invertebrates and is an important breeding site for the [name] nightjar. In addition to the primary reason for the SAC designation, it is designated for the further [name] habitat, [name] with Erica tetralix.

The site’s conservation objectives are to maintain, in favourable condition, the dry and wet heaths. The risks to the habitat and its species are from an increase in recreation use of the SAC, as a result of any new residential development within a 15km radius of the SAC. Therefore, without mitigation, the proposed dwellings alone or in combination would have a likely significant effect on the integrity of the SAC.

The evidence base prepared by [name] on behalf of the consortium of district authorities, identifies that [name] and [name] (SAMMMs) will deliver sufficient mitigation and avoidance measures to prevent any likely significant effects to the SAC from residential development within the zone of influence. This is required to be secured as a set financial contribution per additional dwelling unit granted within the zone towards the SAMMMs.

Natural England has confirmed that the Appropriate Assessment (AA) carried out by the Council for the appeal scheme, demonstrates that there would be no adverse effects on the integrity of any sites in question, subject to all mitigation measures being appropriately secured. In view of such and that my AA has come to the same conclusions, subject to the appropriate payment towards the SAMMMs, as secured by the S111 submitted by the appellant and confirmed to have been paid to the Council.

Therefore, appropriate mitigation would be in place to ensure the qualifying features of the SAC would not be harmed by the proposed development, in accordance with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations and paragraphs 192- 195 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Also, the proposal would comply with Policy N6 of the PSB, which sets out that development will not be permitted where it would have an adverse impact on the SAC and the effects cannot be mitigated. It also sets out that mitigation of any identified adverse effects on [name] must be demonstrated to the Council as the Competent Authority and, secured by means of a suitable mechanism (e.g. Legal agreement) prior to approval of the development.

There is a route across the appeal site that is used by local residents to provide more convenient pedestrian accessibility to facilities and services. Also, the appeal site provides vehicular access to the parking at No 8 and the rear of properties along [address]. Although, as confirmed by the Council, this is not a public right of way and the appeal site is private land.

The proposed site layout plan shows that access across the site and to neighbouring parking space could be maintained as part of the proposal. The level of traffic movement associated with the proposed dwellings would unlikely be that different from the previous use of the site for garages. Therefore, based on the small scale of the development, the level of noise generated by the occupiers of the development would not be that significant. Also, the appellant has not suggested that access would be denied, nor do they object to a condition to relocate the visitor parking spaces, to ensure better ease of access to the rear of properties in [address]. Additionally, the highway authority has raised no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions.

Therefore, subject to conditions, I am satisfied that appropriate access to neighbouring properties would be retained and no harm would be caused to the living conditions of local residents or highway safety by the proposed development.

While concerns have been raised about the impact of the proposal on biodiversity, including that bats use the site for foraging, no substantive evidence has been provided in respect of protected species within the appeal site. The applicants’ evidence demonstrates that the proposal would secure appropriate biodiversity enhancement, exceeding the statutory 10% requirement. Therefore, I am satisfied that appropriate habitat replacement and enhancement can be secured by condition, including replacement hedgerow biodiversity units. Also, subject to a condition requiring details of external lighting to be agreed prior to occupation of the development, this would ensure foraging bats using the site would not be harmed by the proposal.

Even if there are current anti-social behaviour problems within the appeal site, the construction and occupation of the new dwellings, by virtue of increased activity and observation by its occupiers, would likely help reduce such. Additionally, subject to details of external lighting being agreed via condition, any potential light pollution to nearby residents would be appropriately managed. Similarly, a condition requiring details and provision of waste and recycling facilities for the proposed dwellings to be agreed, would ensure suitable bin facilities and access thereto for the residents of the new dwellings. No side windows are proposed and there would be adequate distance separation between the windows of existing and the proposed dwellings to ensure no direct overlooking. Therefore, subject to conditions, the proposal would not be harmful to highway safety or the living conditions of existing nearby residents. Also, the future residents of the new development would have suitable living conditions.

With regard to landscaping, this would enhance the appearance of the site compared to the existing areas of hardstanding. Furthermore, in view of the separation distance between the proposed landscaping and existing buildings, it is unlikely that proposed new trees would cause harmful damage to neighbouring property, so as to justify refusal of the proposal.

Having regard to the advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework, I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council. Also, the appellant has had opportunity to comment on conditions as part of the appeal process.

In addition to the standard implementation condition, it would be necessary in the interests of certainty to define the plans with which the scheme should accord, including the additional levels and site section details. As set out above, conditions in relation to access, highway matters, lighting, waste facilities and biodiversity enhancement are necessary to make the development acceptable. Also, it would be reasonable and appropriate to require details of the external materials to be agreed, to ensure the new dwellings would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Although, I have updated the wording of the conditions suggested by the Council to be more precise.

It has been demonstrated that in excess of 10% net gain would be provided, as required by statute. Therefore, suitable replacement planting would be provided for the hedgerow that would be lost within the site. The effect of paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, is that planning permission granted for the development of land in England is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition (“the biodiversity gain condition”) that development may not begin unless: (a) A Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to the planning authority, and (b) the planning authority has approved the plan. The planning authority, for the purposes of determining whether to approve a Biodiversity Gain Plan if one is required in respect of this permission would be Stafford Borough Council.

There are statutory exemptions and transitional arrangements which mean that the biodiversity gain condition does not always apply. These are listed in paragraph 17 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) and the [name] (Exemptions) Regulations 2024. Based on the information available the proposed development is considered to be one which will require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because none of the statutory exemptions or transitional arrangements are considered to apply.

However, the biodiversity net gain plan submitted with the proposal will need to be updated to accommodate changes to the visitor car park layout. Therefore, I have included a condition clarifying such. However, provisions are not needed for the long-term management and maintenance of the onsite biodiversity in view of the scale of the development. Furthermore, the appellant or any future developer implementing the permission would need to adhere to the relevant provisions of the Act in relation to a biodiversity net gain plan.

In view of the location of the appeal site, to the rear of existing dwellings and the position of the site access and accesses to neighbouring property, a condition is needed to agree a construction management plan, so no harm is caused to highway safety or the living conditions of nearby residents, from undue noise and disturbance during construction. However, a condition to prevent first floor side windows in Plot 5 is not needed, as there is already a restriction on side windows within the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended. This would suitably control and prevent harmful overlooking of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling from the future residents of Plot 5.

For the reasons given above, the appeal would accord with the development plan read as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawing titles and Nos, unless otherwise submitted and agreed pursuant to other conditions attached to this permission: - [name] including Location Plan, [name] 2505/PL/01 - Proposed Site Layout, [name] 2505/PL03 [name] - Layout as Proposed 3B5P Terraced, [name] 2505/PL/03 [name] - Layout as Proposed 2B4P, [name] 2505/PL/04 [name] - Proposed Site Section and [name] 2505/PL/05

Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, no development shall take place until a revised site layout and landscape plan showing the 3 No visitor parking spaces relocated further east, set away from the existing vehicular access to the rear of 18 and [address], has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the visitor parking spaces provided prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings and thereafter retained as such for the lifetime of the development.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, 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 and unloading of plant and materials; - storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; - the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, where appropriate; - wheel washing facilities; - measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; - a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; delivery, demolition, and; - construction working hours. The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

The development shall not commence until an updated Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with such and in conjunction with the requirements of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including samples of the facing materials of the dwellings hereby permitted, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and samples.

Prior to the occupation of the dwellings, details of space within the site and facilities for refuse collection and management shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and the refuse facilities provided prior to the first occupation of the respective dwelling/s it is to serve and retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the installation of any external lighting, full details including height, design, location, intensity of the external lighting within the appeal site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The lighting installation shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained as such for the lifetime of the development End of Schedule