Appeal 6001557

The appeal is dismissed, and planning permission for new bungalow is refused.

The appeal results from the Council’s failure to determine the application within the prescribed period. There is no formal decision on the application, as jurisdiction over that was taken away when the appeal was lodged. However, I note the assessment and conclusions submitted by the Council during the appeal process, which sets out the refusal reasons it would have used had it determined the application. Accordingly, the main issues for the appeal are:

Whether a safe and suitable vehicular access would be provided,

Whether the proposed development would be capable of complying with the general condition of planning permission set out at paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in respect of

The effect of the proposal upon protected species, and

The effect of the proposal upon existing trees, with regard to their ecological and landscape values.

The proposal would utilise an existing private access from [address] that is adjacent to a bridge. At my visit I saw that visibility in an easterly direction is very poor for a number of reasons; these include the level of the road, which drops considerably to the east beyond the bridge, the angle of the access lane relative to the road and its very steep gradient at its eastern side, and the brick wall that forms the side of the bridge where it is above the level of the carriageway and close to the carriageway edge.

The Council has concerns about the existing access, which it suggests is significantly substandard. In response, the appellant emphasises the established use of the lane and the access for 4 existing dwellings. Although the access exists, no case is made to demonstrate that a safe and suitable vehicular access could be achieved for the proposed dwelling by providing details of visibility splays. It is in any case apparent from the site visit that without significant and costly reconstruction work, it does not appear to be possible to improve visibility in an easterly direction. The existing layout is unsafe for drivers who are exiting the lane due to the very limited visibility in an easterly direction and for those travelling on [address] who have very limited visibility of vehicles emerging from the lane when approaching from the east.

I accept that the existing access has been used for many years to serve the existing dwellings and in the time that the appellant has lived at the site no accidents are recalled. Furthermore, the vehicle movements associated with a single dwelling would be relatively low. However, increasing the number of dwellings that utilise this access from 4 to 5 would constitute a significant change. Assuming the households all have similar levels of car use this would represent a 25% increase in vehicle movements for an access that is significantly substandard for the reasons given.

Whilst the [name] (LHDG) states that a private drive can serve up to 5 dwellings, it provides several requirements that do not appear to be satisfied by the proposal. These include a requirement for a minimum width of 5 metres to allow for refuse vehicles for private drives that are over 25 metres.

I accept that it is sometimes possible to develop alternative solutions to address these matters, such as addressing the risk that would arise from the difficulty of accessing the dwelling in the event of a fire by enhancing fire protection through the installation of a sprinkler system. However, this does not address the basic and fundamental inadequacy of the existing access, at the point where the lane connects to [address]. The proposal would result in its increased use, which would harm highway safety.

In summary, the submissions do not demonstrate that a safe and suitable vehicular access would serve the proposed dwelling. The proposal would be contrary to Policy IF4 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan 2021 (LP), Paragraphs 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and the LHDG, which together seek to ensure that development proposals incorporate safe and suitable access, and that development is refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The submitted [name] Report1 states that it is not possible to deliver the necessary 10% BNG within the site. It recommends exploring off-site habitat compensation options, such as purchasing the biodiversity units from a third-party habitat bank. There is nothing before me to demonstrate that this has been considered further. 1 [name] P2750_01

Additionally, the Planning Practice Guidance refers to the potential need for a planning obligation to secure either significant onsite habitat enhancements or offsite gains for the development. This also has not been addressed.

On this basis it is not possible for me to ascertain whether the proposed development would be capable of complying with the general condition of planning permission set out at paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in respect of BNG. It would therefore not accord with Policy En1 of the LP or Paragraph 187 of the Framework, insofar as they seek to ensure that development proposals provide net gain for biodiversity.

The proposal would result in the loss of trees at the site. There is nothing before me to demonstrate that the trees have been assessed for their suitability to support roosting bats.

Regulation 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (The Regulations) requires a competent authority to have regard to the requirements of the associated Directive so far as it may be affected by the exercise of its functions. This includes any proposal that might lead to the deterioration or destruction of the breeding sites and resting places of [name] (EPS) under Article 12(1). This includes bats and the places that they roost.

Paragraph 99 of the 2005 Circular2 states 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 the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances, with the result that the surveys are carried out after planning permission has been granted. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case.

In summary, the information before me relating to the potential for the proposal to impact upon EPS is insufficient. I cannot therefore be confident that the proposal would satisfy the requirements of Policy En1 of the LP, the 2005 Circular and The Regulations insofar as they seek to ensure that development proposals do not harm protected species.

The submitted Tree Survey3 suggests that two trees at the appeal site are category A trees. Information before me relating to tree impacts is limited. It would appear to be the case that these trees would either need to be felled or that they would be severely compromised if retained, with likely future pressure for their felling because of their proximity to the dwelling. There is nothing to show how they have been accounted for in the design of the proposal. 2 Office of the [name] 06/2005: Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – [name] and their impact within The Planning System 3 Tree Survey for [site address] Coalville 21st January 2025

The trees are sizeable. The oak is recorded as semi-mature and the hornbeam as early-mature, and both have the potential for significant further growth. They are visible in the wider area that includes the adjacent bowling green and public open space, and thus contribute to the area’s character and appearance. As a result, their loss would cause some visual harm. In addition, there would be an ecological impact arising from the loss of the trees, owing to their habitat value.

In summary, the proposal would have a harmful impact on existing trees. It would thus not accord with Policy En1 of the LP insofar as it seeks to ensure that new development retains existing ecological features.

The proposal would deliver a dwelling. In the context of the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes this is a matter that weighs in favour of the proposal. There would also be a modest economic benefit from the construction work and from future occupants as they make use of existing services and facilities. The proposal would however be contrary to the development plan for the reasons given, and the benefits identified are insufficient to outweigh this position.

The Council had previously considered a similar proposal at the site, which was withdrawn before it made its decision. The appellant was invited by the Council to resubmit the proposal in a different form, with the advice given that planning matters will need to be satisfied. Some of the issues that the Council has raised in respect of the appeal proposal were not raised previously. I appreciate that this is frustrating for the appellant. It is however important that I determine the proposal before me on its own merits. The Council’s position in respect of the appeal proposal was set out clearly in its statement, and the appellant had opportunity to respond to these in his final comments. Following my assessment of the proposal I have reached clear findings on all the main issues, and I am not convinced that the lack of previous comments on some of these matters, including the proposal’s impact on highway safety, should cause me to reach an alternative view.

For the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed and the application refused.