Appeal 6001483

The appeal is dismissed.

The application sought outline planning permission, with the matters of access, layout and scale being for determination 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, and • The effect of the proposal on biodiversity.

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.

In terms of access to services, the appeal site is located, according to the appellant, approximately 1.5 miles from Wollaston, which is the nearest settlement. There are no public transport services directly serving the site, and the nearest bus stops are a minimum of 1.2 miles distant. The submitted Design and Access statement outlines that these are a 22- and 25-minute walk from the site, using public footpaths. However, I observed that the routes to these bus stops would involve walking or cycling along single-track rural roads, with no lighting or footways present. As such, this would be an unattractive proposition for future residents. 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 occupies an area of land that currently comprises part of the garden area of the adjacent property. It is located along a narrow, single track rural road, which serves a small number of existing residential properties. These properties are sporadically positioned along this road, and, in some instances, there is substantial spacing between the buildings. This sparse arrangement of properties is an attractive and characteristic feature of the rural locality within which the site sits.

The proposed development would result in the introduction of new built form into one of the gaps that exists. While it would not result in the closing up of the entire gap, it would nonetheless diminish the open quality of the existing arrangement of dwellings. It would consolidate the built development within the vicinity, eroding the rural character and appearance of the area.

I have nothing to suggest that the development would impact on any important views. Notwithstanding this, it does not dissuade me that a new dwelling at this location would serve to erode the intermittent positioning of buildings along the road, and thus it would appear as an incongruous and intrusive feature at this location, that would not be ameliorated by the addition of landscaping within any proposed scheme.

Therefore, the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The scheme therefore conflicts with policy CSP.1 of the [name], and policies AP.4 and AP.5 of the Allocations Plan. Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development maintains or enhances the environment, is of a high-quality design, and protects local distinctiveness.

The Council highlight that although the nearest component of the Wye Valley and Forest of Dean Bat Site Special Area of Conservation (the SAC) is approximately 4 kilometres (km) from the site, there is evidence of long-distance connections between the SAC and the Woodchester Park Site of Special Scientific Interest greater and lesser horseshoe bat maternity roost in the Cotswolds, to the east. There is also a bat roost within 150 metres, and a further 1.6km distant. Given that bats are a highly mobile species, these roosts are considered to be functionally linked to the SAC. In this context, there is significant potential for development at the site to have an effect on protected species, as well as on the SAC, as a habitat site.

There is no ecological assessment in respect of the likely effect of the proposed development. As a consequence, in the absence of evidence to the contrary and adopting a precautionary approach, I cannot be satisfied that the proposed development on this site would not have a likely significant effect on protected species or the SAC.

The appellant has indicated that they would be willing to undertake surveys and requests that a pre-commencement condition be imposed to any permission requiring the submission and approval of appropriate ecological information. However, I am mindful of the guidance of Circular 06/2005 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system (the Circular). The presence of a protected species is a material planning consideration. The Circular clearly outlines that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted. Otherwise, all relevant considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision.

In the absence of appropriate ecological information at this stage, I am not able to ascertain that any effect on biodiversity, including a habitat site, would be acceptable. The Circular further advises that the need to ensure that ecological surveys are carried out should only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances. I am not convinced that any such circumstances exist in this case.

Therefore, I have insufficient information to be able to be satisfied that the development would not have a harmful effect on biodiversity. Thus, I am unable to find that the proposal would accord with policy CPS1 of the [name], or policies AP.1, AP.7, and AP.8 of the Allocations Plan. Together, and amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that development respects the natural environment, improves environmental conditions, and safeguards biodiversity.

It is common ground that the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. However, I have found above that I am not able to conclude that the development would not result in harm to a habitat site. There are policies within the Framework therefore that provide a clear reason for refusing permission for the proposed development. In this case, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as envisaged by paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework does not apply to the appeal scheme.

The scheme would conflict with policies within the development plan in respect of the location of the development, the effect on the character and appearance of the area and effect on biodiversity.

There are however benefits to be balanced against these harms. The scheme is offered as a self-build dwelling which would make a contribution to this form of development and to housing supply in general. There would also be limited economic benefits that would arise both during and post-construction. In addition, the appellant highlights that the dwelling would be designed to include sustainability measures.

The appellant offers to relinquish an existing planning permission for a holiday let development at the site. However, there is no legal agreement before me that would secure this and as such this has little bearing on my decision. The lack of objection from the parish council or neighbouring occupiers are neutral matters in

Considering all matters, the benefits of the scheme are insufficient to outweigh the harm, and consequent conflict with the development plan, which would result from the development.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.