Appeal 6001575

The appeal is dismissed.

I have utilised the description of development as stated on the decision notice. Owing to the condition of the site during my site visit, the description given on the application form provides a more accurate reflection of the case and the development proposed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be sited in an appropriate location; • the effect of the proposed development upon highway safety, including whether an appropriate amount of vehicle parking would be provided; • whether the proposed development would be at risk of ball strike from a neighbouring golf course; • whether the proposed development would have an adverse effect on protected species; • whether the foul and surface water drainage of the proposed development has been adequately addressed; and, • whether adequate protection for retained trees would be provided during construction works.

[site address] is located between Blaby and Countesthorpe. The appeal site is located in the centre of the Green Wedge which separates these two settlements. Policy CS16 of the Blaby District Core Strategy 2013 (CS) sets out the strategic objectives of the Green Wedge. It notes that they will be designated to prevent the merging of settlements, guide development form, provide a green lung and provide a recreation resource. Policy BNP2 of the Blaby Neighbourhood Plan 2018 (NP) notes that development within the Green Wedge will be restricted to that identified in Policy CS16 of the CS.

Policy CS16 also notes that within the Green Wedge, agricultural, outdoor recreation, forestry, footpaths, bridleways, cycleways and burial ground uses will be considered as appropriate. The proposed development would include uses relating to a hair and beauty salon, a selection of therapy rooms and a spa pool, amongst other elements. Therefore, the proposed development would not align with the uses outlined as appropriate in Policy CS16 of the CS.

Policy DM2 of the Blaby District Local Plan Delivery Development Plan Document 2019 (DPD) sets out a general criterion which must be met for development within the countryside. With regard to this specific main issue, the Council notes that point C of this policy requires new development to not undermine the vitality and viability of existing town, district and local centres. Policy CS13 of the CS sets out the direction of specific uses should be located. Leisure uses, such as that proposed in this appeal, are defined as town centre uses. Such uses are subject to a sequential test. A sequential test does not appear to have been provided and therefore, I must conclude that the proposed development would not meet point c of the general criteria included in Policy DM2 of the DPD.

Much of the case presented by the appellant on this main issue focuses on that the proposal would reuse the footprint of an existing glasshouse which would utilise the re-use of previously developed land. However, critically, the aforementioned policies above do not provide a criterion for the specific circumstances cited. I am cognisant that Policy DM2 of the DPD does indeed note that the change of use, adaptation and extension of buildings is such a development which is indeed permitted. However, the proposed development would not involve such works.

It is also noted that the appellant asserts that the proposal would be contained within a domestic curtilage and is screened by existing landscaping. However, such matters do not get away from the fact that the proposed development would conflict with the appropriate uses which are outlined within Policy CS16 of the CS and would provide a leisure use outside of an existing town, district or local centre, as set out in Policy DM2 of the DPD.

Overall, I must therefore conclude that with regard to the Green Wedge and the spatial strategy for guiding development the proposal would not be located in an appropriate location. The proposed development would conflict with Policy CS16 of the CS, Policy DM2 of the DPD and Policy BNP2 of the NP, the requirements of which have been outlined above. Highway safety

A total of 23 parking spaces are proposed. It is suggested that the proposal would provide employment for six full time staff and two part time staff. It is also contended that this development would be an appointment-based business which would therefore ensure that the number of visitors would not exceed more than ten people at one time. However, the details of how this appointment schedule would work in practice is absent from the evidence before me.

At this point, my attention is therefore drawn to the [name] 3gf: Parking and providing for electric vehicles document (SPD). The SPD sets out the different use class requirements for each development type. In my assessment of these requirements, I note that the parking total which should be provided for a development of this size is much greater than the 23 parking spaces proposed here. Furthermore, given the location of the appeal site within the Green Wedge, away from a town, district or local centre, I am mindful that the use of a private vehicle will highly likely be the preferred transport option for most of its users.

Given the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that a lower parking standard should be followed, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to comply with the standards as set out in the SPD.

The appeal site would be accessed from [site address] . [site address] is a relatively long, straight and flat 40mph road which separates Blaby and Countesthorpe. When exiting the appeal site, users would be limited to a left turn towards Blaby or a right turn towards Countesthorpe.

During my site visit, I observed that when turning left, vehicles approaching from the direction of Countesthorpe would be visible for a considerable distance. The submitted plans indicate that a visibility splay of 65 metres in this direction can be achieved at this point of exit. As such, when turning left out of the appeal site, the proposed development would not give rise to highway safety concerns.

However, when turning right towards Countesthorpe, I noted that the visibility of traffic approaching from the direction of Blaby is obstructed by a mature tree of a substantial size and width. In addition, the submitted plans do not demonstrate that an equivalent visibility splay in this direction can be achieved. Consequently, adequate visibility along [site address] would not be provided, and safe egress from the appeal site when turning right cannot be ensured.

As previously discussed, owing to the absence of specific detail of how the proposed development would work in practice, the development would likely generate a significant number of users. The access road which would lead to the appeal building is a single-track lane which also serves the existing dwelling to the site. As such, there would be multiple vehicles seeking to utilise this access road, in both directions.

The Leicestershire Highway Design Guide Part 3a and 3b: Highway layouts and design – overview and road layouts and design, at Table 15, notes that an unadopted access route should host a 6m driveway width. The evidence before me indicates that the proposed access would be significantly less than this requirement. This would not allow two-way movements to be undertaken by vehicles entering and leaving the appeal site. Overall, this would have a negative effect on highway safety and operational efficiency.

The proposed development would generate a substantial number of vehicle movements. Access to the appeal site, as well as to the existing residential property, is via a long single‐track lane that does not allow for two‐way vehicle movements. This would serve as a heavily used access point. Upon reaching the appeal site, the absence of robust supporting evidence leads me to conclude that a development of this scale would not be adequately served by the proposed vehicle parking provision.

Furthermore, when exiting onto [site address] , sufficient visibility of the highway, and of traffic approaching from the direction of Blaby, would not be achieved. Taken together, these aspects of the proposed access and highway arrangements would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety and a severe adverse effect on the operational efficiency of the local highway network.

To conclude, the proposed development would conflict with the requirements of Policy CS2 of the CS and Policy DM8 of the DPD. These policies seek for development to provide an appropriate level of vehicle parking which also ensures that the highway would be designed to meet the required highway standards.

The appeal site is located close to [name]. During my site visit, it was noted that a hole was close to the boundary of [site address] . As such, there is a risk of golf balls escaping the boundary of the course and landing within the appeal site. The application is accompanied by a [name] Assessment. However, I conclude that this assessment is absent of detailed and robust

The reasons for this are that the risk rating provided lacks any context or explanation for how each likelihood and severity rating was calculated. The proposed controls are explicitly vague, with little justification as to why certain control measures have been deemed as appropriate in these circumstances. I also note that certain procedures or controls, such as a reconfiguration of the hole layout or tee angle, the installation of ball-tracking data systems, along with regular community consultation meetings would highly likely involve the participation of [name] to fulfil these measures to ensure that they are delivered. There is no convincing evidence before me to suggest that the operators of the golf course would be open to providing these measures, along with other suggestions, for the benefit of the proposed development.

Therefore, I cannot conclude that the risk assessment submitted has been carried out with sufficient rigour to lead me to the conclusion that the measures proposed would alleviate the risk of ball strike from [name]. As such, the proposed development would conflict with Policy DM2 of the DPD. This policy seeks for development to provide a satisfactory relationship with nearby uses.

A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal was submitted to support the application. This appraisal notes that with specific regard to [name] (GCN), no presence was recorded during the survey. It does however note that the appeal site and surrounding agricultural land does provide a suitable habitat for GCN. It clarifies that there are over ten recorded ponds within 500m of the proposed development.

This leads to the conclusion that although no presence was recorded at the time of the [name] survey, this does not ensure that there are no GCN overall due to the significant presence of recorded sites within 500m of the appeal site. As such, further targeted surveys are recommended. The appraisal sets out how many further targeted surveys should be undertaken, along with the time of year and suitable weather conditions. These further targeted surveys are absent from the evidence before me.

It is essential to understand the presence of protected species on the site and to assess the impact of the development proposed. In this case, the presence of GCN has not been established, despite the recommendation of further targeted surveys as stipulated by the submitted [name] at section 5.2 of the report. This puts doubt as to whether protected species exist, and if they should exist, what an appropriate set of mitigation or safeguarding measures would include.

Owing to the absence of these further surveys, I must therefore conclude that the proposed development would indeed conflict with Policy CS19 of the CS. This policy seeks for development proposals to ensure that protected species and their habitats are protected from the adverse effects of development through the use of appropriate mitigation measures. To do this, the presence of such species must be established prior to the granting of planning permission, as stipulated by the [name].

Policy CS22 of the CS is concerned with flood risk management. It notes that all development must minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to flooding. In particular, it requires that development should utilise [name] to ensure that flood risk is not increased on site or elsewhere and manage surface water run-off.

The appellant has submitted a quotation and technical plan for the installation of a septic tank system to manage foul drainage. However, this justification is limited. It does not provide sufficient detail regarding the ongoing maintenance of the system, nor does it explain how the outflow would be incorporated. I am also mindful of the scale of the proposed development and the likely high number of users that a building of this size would attract, particularly given the absence of any detailed information about the suggested appointment schedule. The evidence before me also confirms that the septic tank system would serve both the proposed development and the existing residential property. Considering this, I am not persuaded that a system of the size proposed would be capable of accommodating the combined demand generated by both properties.

It is also stated that [name] will be used to discharge surface water by diverting rainwater into the proposed pond to the front of the appeal building. However, the information before me is absent of a percolation test for this drainage method which ensures that it is suitable.

I am, however, mindful that the use of pre‐commencement planning conditions could address these matters prior to the commencement of development. Such a condition would require the submission of detailed drainage information, to be reviewed and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any works begin on site. This approach would ensure that the drainage arrangements for [site address] are satisfactory and of an appropriate specification to accommodate the number of users anticipated.

Therefore, I find that subject to an appropriately worded planning condition which would require the submission of the details which are absent in the evidence before me, the proposed development would not conflict with Policy CS22 of the CS. The relevant requirements of this policy have been discussed earlier within this decision.

[site address] is enclosed by a significant quantity of trees along each boundary. The appellant contends that no trees would be removed during the development of the proposed scheme. However, the Council contend that insufficient information with regard to the protection of retained trees during construction has been provided.

Both parties acknowledge that the requirement for such details could be provided through the use of a planning condition. In my consideration of this matter, a pre-commencement condition which would require the identification of the trees within and the border of [site address] , along with their protection measures, where they are approved by the local planning authority, would ensure that adequate protection would be provided.

Therefore, I consider that subject to the use of an appropriately worded planning condition, the proposed development would comply with Policy CS19 of the CS. This policy notes that the Council will seek to maintain natural habitats, noting that these sites should be protected from development.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 outlines that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Framework indicates that a decision should be taken in accordance with the development plan.

I acknowledge that the proposed development would provide employment and skill opportunities. It would provide access to well-being and health facilities. However, whilst these benefits are positive, they are extremely limited in weight when weighed against the background of harm identified in this decision. They do not outweigh the harm I have found above in relation to the appeal site location, its effect upon highway safety and operational efficiency, the possible effect of ball strike and the effect upon protected species. There are no material considerations of such weight or significance before me as to justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.