Appeal 6001170

The appeal is dismissed.

[name] safety was not included as a reason for refusal, it is clear from both parties’ submissions that the Council objected to this matter too and so the main issues are: • Whether the location of the appeal site is suitable for a new dwelling; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and, • The effect of the proposal on highway safety

The appeal site is located within a cluster of predominantly residential development that I understand forms the hamlet of [site address] . The site comprises a paddock with the remains of two buildings. It is sited at the junction between [address] and [address] with two sides of the site being bounded by these roads. Adjacent to the site, along [address], is a residential plot containing a large, detached dwelling.

Strategic Policy 2 of the Local Plan (the LP) sets out the settlement hierarchy within the area, settlements that do not have settlement boundaries are considered the open countryside where development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Although the appeal site is near Yoxall, a Tier 2 Local Service Village, it is clearly outside of, and detached from, this settlement.

LP Strategic Policy 8 sets out these exceptional circumstances, including where a proposal is in accordance with a ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan. In this case I understand that the Yoxall Neighbourhood Development Plan (the NDP) is adopted and extant. Policy H2 of the NDP supports residential development outside of the settlement boundary for Yoxall where it would be for affordable housing. Open market housing is only supported where it is essential to enable affordable housing. The proposal is for an open market house, and it has not been demonstrated that there is any connection between this proposal and affordable provision.

The appeal site is not isolated by way of its location within a hamlet, and I am mindful of Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). However, the proposal does not meet any of the circumstances set out under this policy. It has also not been demonstrated that the proposal would reflect local needs or promote sustainable development that enhances or maintains the vitality of rural communities and so does not comply with Framework Paragraphs 82 and 83.

I am particularly mindful of the distance between the appeal site and Yoxall, which is close enough to walk or cycle. However, the route along [address] is largely not illuminated by street lighting or served by a pavement. Future occupiers would therefore need to walk or cycle in the carriageway which, given the narrow and winding nature of the lane, would be unsafe and an unattractive prospect for future occupiers. This is especially so for more vulnerable occupiers or for journeys outside of daylight hours. I note that bus and rail routes have been identified as well as services and amenities that could be used by future occupiers. However, none of these appear to be safely accessible by foot or bike and would therefore require the use of private motor vehicles.

I recognise that the appeal site is previously developed land as a result of the two ruined buildings. I am also mindful that it could be considered an infill plot given the dwellings present on three sides of the site. However, the above policies do not consider these factors as contributors to the exceptions for new housing.

The appeal site, by way of its location, is contrary to the Council’s settlement hierarchy and so would not be suitable for a new dwelling. It would instead erode the Council’s spatial strategy and conflict with [name] 1, 2 and 8 which direct housing development to identified settlements and require proposals to provide convenient access to places like work and shops by sustainable transport. The proposal also conflicts with NDP Policy H2 which similarly sets out exceptions for when housing development outside of Yoxall’s settlement boundary can be acceptable. The proposal also conflicts with the Framework as outlined above.

As noted above, the appeal site is within a hamlet comprised of residential development interspersed and surrounded by agricultural fields. The dwellings around the appeal site are varied in their appearance and scale, and there is little rhythm in the pattern of development. As the site and its boundaries are largely overgrown, the two ruined buildings do not make a significant contribution to either of the two lanes.

The proposal would introduce a new dwelling set back from [address] and angled such that it would continue a line between the adjacent dwellings identified as [address] and [address]. In this way it would not extend a ribbon of development but infill a gap within the cluster. Although this gap contributes to the area’s physical and visual connection with its rural surroundings, the gap is not of especial importance, nor would this connection be unacceptably lost.

Although there is variety in the appearance of the surrounding dwellings, they are predominantly traditional in design. The proposed dwelling would also be of a traditional style sympathetic to, and comparable with, the surrounding dwellings. I note that the dwelling would be taller than its neighbours and would have a somewhat larger footprint. Nevertheless, this is not to such a degree that the dwelling would be incongruous with the surrounding built environment.

Although the proposal would tidy the site, removing the ruined buildings and overgrown vegetation, I do not find that this necessarily improves its appearance which currently makes a fairly neutral contribution to both the built-up and rural characters. Its replacement therefore with a new dwelling which is not harmful to its setting would equally be neutral.

The proposal would not unacceptably affect the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would, therefore, comply with LP Strategic Policy 24 and Detailed Policy 1 as well as [name] D1 and D2. These collectively, and amongst other matters, seek to achieve high quality design that reinforces, complements or enhances the local rural character of the hinterland around Yoxall with particular regard to materials, detailing and construction techniques.

[address] and [address] are both two-way roads without pavements. Both are fairly narrow and bounded by hedgerows. There are also a number of examples of grass verges along [address], including opposite the junction with [address]. Both lanes are national speed limit but, given the narrow and winding nature of the carriageways, it is unlikely that this speed would be achieved. At the time of my visit, which is only a snapshot in time, there were only a few vehicular movements past the junction. I note the appellant’s transport [name] found similarly with regards to both highway speeds and traffic levels.

The proposal includes the provision of a visibility splay along [address], an access on [address] with a visibility splay and a layby, also on [address]. collectively these features would widen the roadway and improve intervisibility between those on [address] and [address].

The visibility splay serving the junction between [address] and [address] would, by improving intervisibility, also open up views between the two roads. I note the Council’s concerns that this would result in increased vehicle speeds and potentially vehicles entering [address] on the wrong side of the road. [address] narrows away from the junction, there are clear white lines defining both carriageways. Mindful of the improved visibility, I have no reason to believe that drivers would not still follow the relevant laws and [name]. Similarly, it is unlikely the visibility splay would increase road speeds, nevertheless, as they are currently much below the 60mph allowable, some modest increase would not be unacceptable.

Therefore, in light of the above, the proposal would not unacceptably affect highway safety as a result of the provision of the visibility splay at the junction between [address] and [address]. The proposal therefore complies with LP Strategic Policy 1 which looks to prevent highway safety issues.

The appeal site is within the 15km zone of influence of the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC). In combination with other plans and projects, the addition of residential units within this area would be likely to have a significant effect on the internationally important interest features of the SAC due to increased recreational disturbance. Appropriate mitigation needs to be secured for such development. However, because I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I am not pursuing this matter further as it would not lead me to a different decision.

My attention has been drawn to several Council decisions relating to new dwellings and I note the comparisons made. I have not been provided with the full details and facts of these applications and decisions. Whilst other planning decisions can be material considerations, all decisions turn on their own circumstances based on the facts and evidence before the decision-maker at the time. As such, I cannot make any meaningful comparisons to the appeal scheme before me, which I must consider on its own merits.

[name] note the support received from interested parties, this does not preclude me from finding the harm above or concluding differently to them.

The Government’s objective is to significantly boost the supply of housing, and the proposal would provide one new self-build dwelling. It would also lead to a small and time-limited economic benefit during the construction phase. [name] am mindful of the Government’s support for self-build housing, given the site’s location and the small scale of the proposal, I nevertheless attach these matters, at most, modest weight.

Without substantive evidence of local services and facilities, I cannot be certain that there are any that would be readily accessible for future occupiers. As such I cannot conclude the proposal would result in any social and economic benefits stemming from future occupiers.

While the proposal would not result in any unacceptable impacts to highway safety or character and appearance, the lack of harm is not a benefit in itself. These matters therefore weigh neutral in my considerations.

Conversely, the proposal would conflict with the Council’s settlement hierarchy for the provision of new dwellings and would therefore erode their spatial strategy in conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. Given the scale of the proposal, this matter attracts moderate weight and outweighs the benefits associated with the proposed development.

The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the Framework, that outweigh this conflict. Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.