Appeal 6001475

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: (i) whether the proposed development would be in a suitable location, taking account of the Council’s spatial strategy and access to services and facilities; (ii) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; (iii) the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of future occupiers, with particular regard to the size of outdoor garden space; and (iv) the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

Policy 3 of the Cornwall Local Plan Strategic Policies 2010 – 2030 (the LP) sets out that, outside of the main areas for growth, development will take place in several ways. These include infill schemes that do not physically extend a settlement, the rounding off of settlements, and the redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL) within or adjoining a settlement. In these scenarios, it first requires an assessment of whether the appeal site forms part of a settlement.

Paragraph 1.68 of the LP is helpful in this regard in that it states that, for infill development, a settlement should have a form and shape and clearly definable boundaries, rather than being a low-density straggle of buildings. I have also had regard to the guidance contained within the Chief Planning Officers Guidance Note on infilling and rounding off. In this instance, the appeal site is located within a grouping of buildings. However, these are loosely spaced, set amongst trees and appear to have little relationship with each other. Moreover, there is no obvious focal point or centre. In essence, the development in this area does appear as a straggle of buildings rather than a definable settlement.

As such, the proposed development cannot accord with the aforementioned requirements of LP Policy 3. It is also apparent that the proposal would not conform with LP Policy 7 which concerns housing within the countryside. As a result, the scheme would not adhere to the adopted spatial strategy, and in this regard my conclusions on this matter accord with those reached by an Inspector for a different appeal proposal nearby1.

There are no services and facilities within the immediate vicinity although some do exist in the nearby settlements of Scorrier, [name] and Blackwater. There are also bus stops within walkable distance which provide services to Redruth and Newquay. However, to reach any of these locations, it would require future occupiers to walk along a road from the site which has no pavement and is unlit. As such, doing so may not be considered safe. In addition, while cycling is possible, this is unlikely to be an attractive option in poor weather or during the hours of darkness. It is therefore likely that future occupiers would be predominantly reliant on private vehicles to access services and facilities.

As a result of the proximity of the site to Redruth, which has an abundance of services and facilities, the majority of journeys by private vehicles are likely to be relatively short. Moreover, the limited number of dwellings proposed means that the number of journeys would be quite modest. It is also the case that paragraph 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that opportunities to utilise sustainable forms of transport are likely to be fewer in rural areas. As such, I find that the ‘on the ground’ harm resulting from the conflict with the spatial strategy would be very limited.

Nevertheless, for the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would not be in a suitable location. It would therefore conflict with [name] 1, 2, 3 and 7, the relevant aspects of which seek to locate new development within sustainable areas.

The collection of buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site have a wide variety of different styles and designs, including modern homes and those of a more traditional appearance. From the approved plans before me, it is clear that the four proposed dwellings would have a modern appearance. However, this would not be unusual for the immediate area and, when considering appearance in isolation, I do not find harm.

However, the existing predominant character is of relativity large homes set within spacious plots. In contrast, the proposed homes would be situated close together as a very tight cluster, all within small plots. This would particularly be the case with plots 1 and 3 which would have noticeably small garden areas. The development would therefore appear highly cramped, contrived and incongruous, thereby inevitably detracting greatly from the immediate character of the area when compared to the existing appearance of the site.

As such, the proposed development would result in harm to character and appearance and would therefore conflict with [name] 12 and 23, as well as Policy 10 of the St Agnes Neighbourhood Development Plan (the NDP). In part, these policies seek to ensure that new development is well designed and that it preserves local character. 1 Appeal ref: APP/D0840/W/20/3254168

The Council’s decision notice refers to the garden spaces associated with plots 3 and 4. However, the officer report and the Council’s appeal statement make it clear that this should be read as plots 1 and 3. Para 9.5.7 of the [name] sets out that new homes should have rear garden space that is at least equal to the footprint of the dwelling. While the [name] is not policy, it is still helpful guidance. Based on the plans before me, plots 1 and 3 would clearly have very small and disjointed rear garden spaces that would not adhere to the aforementioned guidance. This is indicative of a cramped and poorly designed proposal. It is therefore inevitable that future occupiers would feel enclosed, and that the space would not be sufficient to fully meet its purposes.

The Council also has concerns with regards to the size of the garden space for plot 2 given that it would perhaps be constrained by an area identified to secure biodiversity net gain. However, even if this were the case, the garden of plot 2 would still be larger than those of plots 1 and 3, and it is these two dwellings where there would be clear and obvious harm.

As such, the proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of future occupiers and it would therefore conflict with LP Policy 12, which in part, seek to ensure that new developments and well designed and that they provide high quality private spaces.

The proposed southern access track, which would serve plots 3 and 4, has very limited width in parts and has two significant kinks which limit visibility considerably. It is inevitable that, should two vehicles meet each other at the wrong moment when navigating these corners, safety issues could be caused, both for the users of the vehicles and also any pedestrians using the track to access their dwellings.

Moreover, at the point of access with the road, the visibility to the left when leaving the access track is quite poor. As the road has limited width, it is possible that vehicles exiting the track would turn into the path of oncoming vehicles. This is a straight road with a national speed limit, and it is likely that some vehicles would be travelling quickly along it. This again could lead to highway safety issues.

I recognise that both the track and the point of access are already in use and have been for some time. There is also no evidence before me to indicate that there have been accidents in this location previously. However, these matters do not mean that intensifying the use of the track would not have the potential to result in harm. Indeed, I do not have sufficient evidence before me to be satisfied that the increased use of the southern access road would be safe.

As a result, I find that the proposed development would result in the potential for highway safety issues. It would therefore conflict with LP Policy 27, which in part, seeks to ensure that new development would be safe for all highway users. I note that LP Policy 26 was incorrectly referenced on the decision notice. However, the Council set out within their appeal statement that this was an error, and it appears that the appellant already recognised this mistake as part of their appeal statement. I am therefore satisfied that there is no procedural unfairness in terms of referring to LP Policy 27 as part of my decision.

The Council’s fourth reason for refusal, as provided on their decision notice, relates to harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in terms of privacy. However, the Council’s appeal statement makes it clear that they have reconsidered this issue and are now content that any harm to privacy would be minimal. I note that third parties have also objected to the scheme for various reasons, including in relation to privacy. I have had careful regard to the issues raised. However, as I have dismissed the case as a result of the main issues that I have identified, there is no reason for me to address these other matters as part of my decision.

The site is within the zone of influence of the [name] and Fal and Helford Estuaries Special Areas of Conservation. However, an appropriate assessment is only necessary when allowing a development proposal. I have therefore not considered this issue further.

As part of their appeal statement, the appellant has sought to draw my attention to two different appeals in support of their case2. A further case is referenced within their final comments3. However, I have already noted that the harm in relation to the conflict with the adopted spatial strategy would be very limited and I have clearly set out why the proposal would be unacceptable in other regards. As such, these appeals are not directly comparable and do not alter my decision in this case.

From the evidence before me, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with the current figure being approximately 3.8 years. In such circumstances the test set out in paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework is engaged.

In this instance, the benefits of the proposal include the provision of four new homes that would assist in meeting need in the area, provide support for local facilities, and create jobs during the construction phase. There is also potential for some enhancements to biodiversity. Despite the level of shortfall in housing land supply and delivery which leads me to attribute increased weight to the benefits, I still only afford moderate weight to them overall as a result of the modest size of the proposal.

In terms of the conflict with the spatial strategy, I have already noted that the level of ‘on the ground’ harm would be very limited. As such, this is not a determinative feature of this appeal. However, I have also concluded that there would be material harm to the character and appearance of the area and to the living conditions of future occupiers, as well as the potential for harm in relation to highway safety.

The support for the principle of development within the Framework, including making efficient use of previously developed land, is countered by the importance it places on the provision of development that preserves character and appearance, living conditions and highway safety. In this instance, the combined harm would be both significant and enduring. 2 Appeal refs: APP/D0840/W/24/3345642 and APP/D0840/W/24/3344184 3 Appeal ref: APP/D0840/W/25/3363133

As a result, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Consequently, for the reasons given, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh the identified harm. The appeal is therefore dismissed.