Appeal 6001544

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan. However, as no policies of the emerging Local Plan have been submitted to me, I have determined this appeal in accordance with the extant development plan.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has submitted additional plans and documents in response to the Council’s reasons for refusing the planning application, covering matters relating to transport, drainage, ecology and biodiversity issues. As these plans and documents were not before the Council when it determined the appeal, they have not been subject to formal consultation. Nor has the Council provided, within their Statement of Case, a response to them. On that basis, were I to take account of them during my determination of this appeal, I cannot be certain that no party would be prejudiced. I have, therefore, determined this case based upon the evidence before the Council when the application was determined.

In regard to the signed and dated [name] (UU) submitted by the appellant, as this would have legal effect should I allow this appeal, it is necessary for me to take it into consideration within my decision, as confirmed by caselaw1.

The main issues are: • whether the location of the site is suitable for the proposal, having regard to the promotion of alternative modes of transport to the private vehicle; • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, and the effect of the proposal on the openness and the purposes of the Green Belt; 1 Tiwana Construction Ltd v SSHCLG & West Suffolk Council [2025] EWHC 1485 (Admin) • the effect of the proposal on ecology, with particular regard to protected species; • the effect of the proposal on the safety of users of [address]; • the effect of the proposal on water quality and flood risk; • the effect of the proposal on biodiversity; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

Policy PSP11 of the PSPP2 supports residential development where it is located on safe, usable walking and/or cycling routes, and an appropriate distance to key services and facilities. This includes being located within 400 metres of a bus stop and 1200 metres of a convenience store. During my site visit, I saw no evidence that a bus service operates along [address] and, although the nearest settlement of Siston benefits from a church plus a church room and a children’s nursery, there is not a convenience store within the village. Therefore, future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would need to travel further, such as to the edge of Bristol where a comprehensive and extensive range of services and facilities which support day to day living can be found.

Notwithstanding its proximity to Siston and Bristol, access from the site to these settlements is via [address]; a road which is devoid of pavements and largely unlit. These characteristics are unlikely to encourage people to walk or cycle on a daily or regular basis. Travelling by car, therefore, would be the most realistic and convenient option used by future occupiers of the proposal.

Consequently, I conclude that the location of the site is not suitable for the proposal, having regard to the promotion of alternative modes of transport to the private vehicle. It conflicts with Policy CS8 of the Core Strategy3 and Policy PSP11 of the PSPP which, amongst other provisions, support development that provides users with a range of travel options other than the private vehicle, that are safe, accessible, convenient and attractive. Nor does it accord with the Framework’s prioritisation of sustainable transport modes and the provision of safe and suitable access for all users.

The appeal site is located within the Bristol/Bath Green Belt where, in accordance with the Framework, development is inappropriate development unless one of several specific circumstances apply. The following circumstances have been cited as relevant to the appeal proposal, namely: • paragraph 154g) - limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt (paragraph 154g)); and 2 [name] and Places Plan (PSPP) 3 [site address] Local Plan: [name] ([name]) • the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt where all criteria at paragraph 155 are met.

Policies CS5 and CS35 of the [name] reiterate the Framework’s approach to the protection of the designated Green Belt from inappropriate development. Although Policy PSP7 of the PSPP amplifies the Framework’s approach to inappropriate development, this refers specifically to changes of use to sport and recreation, the erection of buildings associated with such uses, and proportionate additions to buildings. As none of these circumstances apply in this case, this policy is not determinative in my decision. Limited infilling:

There is no dispute that the appeal site is located outside a built-up area and therefore, despite comprising residential garden land, falls under the Framework’s definition of previously developed land (Annex 2). The first part of exception 154g) above is, therefore, met. Nonetheless, it is necessary to assess its impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Openness:

The proposal would introduce an additional dwelling comprising a volume lower than that of the existing outbuildings proposed to be removed from the appeal site. The building currently used as an office and located in the garden area of the adjacent property of [site address] is also included within the total volume of the structures which would be removed as part of the proposal. Nonetheless, the volume of the proposed dwelling would be provided in a single, taller and more bulky mass than the outbuildings. It would also be located centrally within the site, in contrast to the boundary edge position of the outbuildings. Further, in the case of outbuildings labelled numbers 2, 3 and 5 on the Block Plan Proposed4, their clustered arrangement and small scale, results in these structures being appreciated as subservient to the host property of [site address] and against the backdrop of the property known as [name].

In addition to the aforementioned single bulk, the area around the proposed dwelling would be likely to include parked cars, hardstanding and other associated domestic paraphernalia which would, collectively, result in a significantly more dominant built form on the site than at present. While without the grant of planning permission various domestic paraphernalia and hardstanding could be laid under permitted development rights in a similar location to the proposed dwelling, collectively, these features would not be at a scale comparable with the appeal scheme.

In turn, this would lead to a material reduction in the openness of the site, in both spatial and visual aspects, and result in harm to the Green Belt in this regard. The absence of an objection from the landscape officer does not alter this conclusion, nor how the openness of the appeal site is experienced on the ground. Given the scale of the proposal, the level of harm in this case would be moderate. Nevertheless, the Framework requires that any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, should be given substantial weight. Consequently, the appeal scheme does not meet the paragraph 154g) exception. 4 Dwg ref: 2076/PR/05 rev [name] belt:

There is no dispute that the appeal site is grey belt land, as defined in the Framework. The Council also accepts that the development would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt area in the plan. Additionally, as the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, there is an unmet need for housing. Consequently, paragraphs 155a and 155b of the Framework would be met. As the proposal is for a single new dwelling, it does not constitute major development, meaning that the requirements at paragraph 155d do not apply in this case. Nonetheless, to meet the exception to development in the Green Belt at paragraph 155 of the Framework, point 155c requires the development to be sustainably located, having particular regard to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework.

Paragraph 110 of the Framework sets out that significant development should be focused on locations which limit the need to travel and offer a genuine choice of transport modes, in support of a vision-led approach to delivering well-designed, sustainable and popular places. Further, when assessing specific applications for development, paragraph 115 states that sustainable transport modes are to be prioritised, taking account of the site, development type and location.

As highlighted above, few services and facilities are located close to the site and those within Siston do not support everyday living nor is the village accessible via safe walking routes or served by public transport. Therefore, despite comprising minor development, a genuine choice of transport modes would not be available to future occupiers of the proposed dwelling and the use of sustainable transport modes would not be prioritised

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal does not benefit from the exceptions at paragraph 154g) and 155 of the Framework. Therefore, it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as defined within the Framework.

As indicated above, several outbuildings are located within the site. These have the potential to support species protected under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, such as bats. However, no ecological surveys or assessments were submitted with the planning application. Therefore, in the absence of such information, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not harm the aforementioned protected species.

To ensure all relevant material considerations have been addressed in decision-making, it is essential for the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by development, to be established before planning permission can be granted. As such, the use of a condition to secure this information, such as a Preliminary Ecological Assessment or Phase 1 Survey, were I minded to allow this appeal, is not appropriate in this case.

I conclude that the proposal would harm ecology, with particular regard to protected species, contrary to Policy CS9 of the [name]. This requires development to conserve and enhance the natural environment through avoiding or minimising its impact on ecology, amongst other things, reflecting the Framework. Consequently, the proposal also conflicts with the Framework in this respect.

Access to the proposed dwelling would be via the existing driveway off [address]. This currently provides access to [site address] and the adjacent property known as [name]. There is no dispute that the existing access has substandard visibility splays given the 60mph speed limit along [address]. No improvements or alterations to the existing access are proposed, and the plans do not show the required visibility splays at its junction with [address].

Although the hedging on the northern side of the access is positioned close to the carriageway, a section of grassy verge separates it from the driveway. As this is free from obstructions and [address] is relatively straight on this side, drivers exiting the existing access have long views towards Siston and approaching vehicles can be clearly seen.

Looking to the south, the deep verge extends along the site boundary to the bend in the lane, after which substantial trees line the carriageway. While driver’s views would be shorter than when looking northwards, the bend in the road requires vehicles to reduce their speed when approaching from this direction. Furthermore, the chevron signage on the bend and presence of other driveways and accesses on the opposite side of the lane alerts drivers to the fact that they are approaching potential hazards. This would also contribute to drivers lowering their speed from the national speed limit. [name] experienced during my site visit, there is sufficient visibility for drivers to exit onto [address] safely.

Notwithstanding the above, no evidence that the standard of the access has resulted in any accidents has been presented to me. Therefore, even if the number of daily movements into and out of the existing access increased, this change would be minor and would not lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the safety of users of [address], in accordance with Policy PSP11 of the PSPP in this respect. As development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, the appeal scheme complies with this aspect of the Framework.

Little details of the proposed drainage were submitted by the appellant with the planning application. Notwithstanding this, no substantive evidence is before me which leads me to conclude that the quality of the local water environment would be reduced or that risk of flooding in the area would increase as a result of the proposal. Furthermore, there is no justification before me to conclude that such matters could not be adequately addressed through the imposition of a suitably worded pre-commencement condition, were I to allow this appeal.

As such, subject to a condition, I conclude that the proposal would not harm water quality nor increase flood risk, in accordance with Policy CS9 of the [name] which, amongst other provisions, seeks to reduce and manage the impact of flood risk and protect the quality and quantity of the water environment and its margins.

In accordance with Schedule 7A ([name] in England) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act), small housing sites must deliver at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat. Exemptions to the provision of biodiversity net gain (BNG) include self-build and custom build development that comprises less than 9 dwellings, on a site smaller than 0.5 hectares and meets the corresponding definition in Section 1(A1) of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015.

In regard to whether the proposal would be self-build or custom housebuilding, a [name] (UU) has been provided which obligates the appellant to be the initial occupants of the dwelling and to occupy it as their [name] immediately after construction, were I to allow this appeal. This, therefore, accords with the definition of self-build and custom housebuilding as set out in the aforementioned Act. Furthermore, the UU meets the tests for planning obligations set out at paragraph 58 of the Framework, namely that it is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to it.

As the appeal scheme also meets the scale of site criteria and falls within the acceptable range of dwelling numbers, I conclude that the proposal would not harm biodiversity and accords with Policy CS9 of the [name] which seeks to ensure development conserves and enhances the natural environment through avoiding or minimising its impact on biodiversity. It also complies with Policy PSP19 of the PSPP’s approach to achieving biodiversity gains from development proposals, reflecting the principles in the Framework.

The proposal would provide social and economic benefits from the construction and occupation of a new dwelling, in support of the Framework’s objective of boosting the supply of homes and, given its scale, could make an important, and quick, contribution. There would also be environmental benefits from the proposed solar panels. However, given the small scale of the proposal, the totality of such benefits would also be small. Furthermore, the lack of realistic alternatives to the use of the private car moderates the benefit arising from the single dwelling in this location, having regard to the policies of the local development strategy. I have also found the proposal would have a harmful effect on ecology, specifically protected species, which weighs against the grant of planning permission in this case. The absence of harm to the safety of users of the highway, on the quality of the local water environment, flood risk, and on biodiversity do not weigh in favour of the appeal scheme.

Nevertheless, the Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites in accordance with the Framework. The evidence before me indicates the supply currently stands at 4.41 years. While not a substantial shortfall, nonetheless, the proposal would make a small contribution to this housing need. I therefore attach moderate weight to the provision of a single, custom or self-build dwelling.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in a moderate loss of its openness, in both visual and spatial terms. The Framework requires that any harm to the Green Belt be given substantial weight and that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

As set out above, the other considerations relating to the proposal’s social, economic and environmental benefits are small in scale. [name] give these benefits moderate weight, they would not be sufficient to clearly outweigh the substantial weight given to the harm to the Green Belt, including the harm to its openness and any other harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify a grant of planning permission have not been demonstrated.

That being the case, there is a strong reason for refusing the development following the application of policies in the Framework that protect the Green Belt. While paragraph 11di of the Framework applies and notwithstanding the housing land supply shortfall, the development does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development therein and as reiterated in Policy CS4A of the [name].

My attention has been drawn to a recently approved detached dwelling5 on land within the Green Belt. Based on the evidence before me, that site is located approximately 400 metres from a bus stop and within walking distance of other facilities, including a secondary school and some retail uses. Therefore, it comprises a materially different circumstance to the appeal site, even if part of the route to the nearest bus stop would be unlit. Reference has also been made to a proposed allocation6 within the Emerging Local Plan nearby. However, as this allocation comprises 1,000 dwellings, the benefits which would be derived from the provision of this level of housing would be far greater than those derived from the delivery of a single dwelling.

The Council’s actions during the determination of the planning application, including whether the case officer undertook a site visit, are not a matter for this

The proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole and material considerations, including the Framework and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.