Appeal 6001636

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted revised drawings that were not before the Council when it made its decision. The street view scenes provide context, rather than any notable alteration to the scheme. A first-floor side elevation window is shown to have been removed on one of the plans, which relates to a matter that is in dispute.

The omission of a first-floor window would not represent a fundamental change to the scheme. The Council and others involved in the appeal have had an opportunity to comment on this information. Therefore, in accepting the plans and information, I am satisfied that unlawful procedural unfairness would be avoided by the inclusion of the proposed amendments.

The main issues are: • whether a safe and suitable access can be achieved; • the effect of the proposed development on local housing needs; • the character and appearance of the area; • the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] (No12), with regard to privacy and outlook; and • whether the proposal would achieve low carbon design.

The proposed access would make use of an existing gated entrance serving an elevated and flattened part of a larger field. It is said this area was used as a show home for the nearby estate and generated numerous associated traffic movements. However, in its present-day sense, the field does not appear used and would be unlikely to generate many traffic movements. The access is positioned on a straight hill and close to a mini roundabout. This, together with a 30mph speed restriction is claimed to reduce traffic speeds in the vicinity of the appeal site entrance. Additionally, it is submitted that the adjoining pavement assists in providing visibility in both directions.

However, even in the absence of recorded crashes, turning right onto the highway was not simple. At the point of exiting the site, a vehicle passed by relatively quickly on approach to the roundabout and did not appear to be aware of my presence. Although this event was merely a snapshot in time, it is more likely that drivers of vehicles approaching the roundabout would be preparing for that manoeuvre, rather than having to deal with emerging vehicles from a somewhat concealed entrance so close to it. Following this, I then had to cross the pavement and creep forward carefully to be able to see oncoming traffic. While visibility to the left was good, even with street lighting, those walking or running up and along the footpath would not necessarily be expecting a vehicle to cross their path in this location.

Some indication of visibility is shown on the plans, though this does not serve to demonstrate acceptable access arrangements. The Highway Authority has objected to the proposal and in the absence of any compelling or substantive evidence to the contrary, I conclude on this main issue that a safe and suitable access for all road users would not be achieved. As such, there would be conflict with Policy DEV29 of the Plymouth and South West Devon Joint Local Plan (JLP), which says, amongst other things, that proposals should provide safe and satisfactory traffic movement and vehicular access to and within the site. This is consistent with paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which says it should be ensured a safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.

Amongst other things, JLP policies SPT2 and DEV8 seek to promote a good balance of house types and sizes to widen opportunities for home ownership, creating sustainable, inclusive, and mixed communities. Supported by local housing evidence, DEV8 is particularly concerned with redressing an imbalance within the existing housing stock, providing homes suitable for households with specific needs, younger people, working families, and older people who wish to retain a sense of self-sufficiency. This is consistent with paragraph 82 of the Framework, part of which says that decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs.

It is claimed that the proposal would be a self-build, where local demand outweighs supply. Notwithstanding the Council’s position on this matter, including that taken at an appeal in Folly Gate1, there is however no mechanism before me to secure the proposal in this way. Having paid regard to the Worcester appeal2 , any such local housing needs benefits cannot be relied upon. 1 Appeal Ref: 6001637 2 APP/J1860/W/24/3354156

The proposed layout shows an accessible ground floor bedroom that would be adaptable for multi-generational living. Additionally, the home office arrangements and number of bedrooms may also suit working families. In acknowledgement of an appeal decision in Exbourne3, this would broaden the choice of specialist needs housing for future residents. That scheme was however materially different to this proposal, as it was also for a 2-bed property where the inspector found that it made a positive contribution to address the local need.

In that respect, it is clear from the evidence that there are more 2 and 3 bed properties than those with 4 bedrooms or more. However, nearly 70% of households in the parish contain up to 2 people, with a comparatively small number of 1 or 2 bed properties. Therefore, the most acute need relates to the smallest properties. Having paid regard to the Wilminstone and Lamerton appeals4, this proposal would exacerbate and fail to redress an imbalanced housing stock, albeit in a marginal way.

In the round, although an adaptable family home would be delivered, which would align with parts of DEV8, there is little evidence the development would widen opportunities for home ownership, be affordable for working families, or suited to those most in need in the area. Consequently, the development would not positively progress a good balance of house size to meet identified housing needs, which conflicts with paragraph 61 of the Framework.

I therefore conclude on this main issue that the proposal would not respond positively to identified local housing needs. As such, it would fail to align with the overall intentions of JLP policies DEV8 and SPT2.

The appeal site is set within a semi-urban context where house designs and scales are not entirely consistent. That said, the proposed two storey property would be positioned above a housing estate, where most properties tend to be of a relatively modest scale and footprint. The large, stone clad property within the estate below has a corner statement role within its surroundings, though unlike the appeal building, it is not a stand-alone feature in the landscape. Although the appeal proposal’s height would not exceed that of properties on the estate road above, these are on much higher ground and have notably low ridge heights.

The presence of 2 storey properties by the mini roundabout, and backdrop of residential development is noted. However, even with attempts to cut and fill, the street view plans indicate the proposal would nevertheless perch somewhat on top of a particularly exposed field. It would not nestle into the landscape, as claimed. The external appearance of the property includes a rather unassuming symmetrical design, following the other development along its contours. This design element would be sympathetic. Even so, its double storey height and sprawling footprint in this particular location would only serve to amplify its untypically large presence.

Views of the proposal would be more limited to its entrance and from the estate below, rather than from the tree lined approach road, even in winter. This would provide some mitigation, though one’s attention would likely be drawn to the 3 APP/Q1153/W/25/3365242 4 APP/Q1153/W/22/3292581 and APP/Q1153/W/21/3282233 expansive solid fencing boundary treatment from available views, which would not be an effective form of landscaping.

Overall, the scale and siting of the proposal would be at odds with its surroundings and would not add to the overall quality of the area. For the reasons given, I therefore conclude on this main issue that the development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with JLP policies DEV10 and DEV20, as well as Policy CH2 of the Tawton Neighbourhood Plan (NP). Together in this respect, and amongst other things, these policies promote high quality design that integrates with adjacent developments, having proper regard to siting, height, and layout.

The property would be positioned on higher ground than No12, which would make sensitivity to change that much more acute. Having paid regard to the representations in this respect, and noting the use of private garden space, the proposal would be set well back from the side elevation of No12. This would allow plenty of separation space between buildings, thus avoiding any gloomy outlook from No12. The orientation of the development and single storey element closest to the boundary with No12 would avoid the sense of any overbearing effects.

In an attempt to overcome concerns relating to overlooking, the revised plan omits a first-floor window on a side elevation facing No12. This would effectively prevent any harmful overlooking which would accord with the guidance set out in the Council’s SPD.

For these reasons, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No12. As such, it would accord with JLP Policy DEV1 which seeks to provide satisfactory outlook and privacy for existing residents.

JLP Policy DEV32 says, amongst other things, that the need to deliver a low carbon future should be considered in the design and implementation of all developments. Opportunities should be identified to minimise the use of natural resources by making use of existing buildings. My attention has been drawn to the Council’s Climate Emergency Planning Statement (CEPS) which expands on the advice in the JLP in meeting the challenge of climate change. M1 of the CEPS seeks a 20% carbon saving through onsite renewable energy generation. While not having the force of policy, the CEPS is nevertheless a material consideration. Noting an appeal decision at Town Farm5 , the aforementioned policy and guidance align with Framework paragraph 166.

There are concerns that the submitted SAP assessment shows the proposed 2kw PV system would fall short of aspirational carbon savings. This is due to the proposed siting on the roof. It is suggested that an alternative location could achieve the required savings. Given the available roof space, there is little reason why this could not be secured by way of an appropriately worded planning

Furthermore, the scheme would include a south facing sunroom, and double glazing, making use of ‘Passivhaus’ principles, which would accord with NP Policy CH2. In addition, a ground source heat pump is proposed. Collectively, these factors adequately demonstrate the development would be able to achieve preferred carbon reductions and overall compliance with DEV32.

I therefore conclude on this main issue that the proposal would achieve a low carbon design. As such, there would be no conflict with JLP Policy DEV32 or NP Policy CH2.

I have concluded above that while the living conditions of the occupiers of No12 would be safeguarded, and desirable carbon reduction measures could be achieved; there would be highway safety and character and appearance harm. There would also be conflict with local housing needs policies. As such, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. These policies are consistent with the Framework and can be afforded significant weight.

It is undisputed that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, where there is a current supply of about 2.53 years. Paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework indicates that where the required supply cannot be demonstrated, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

It adds in 11 d) ii. that particular regard is paid to key policies for making efficient use of land and securing well designed places. Such provisions are identified in footnote 9 and set out in paragraphs 115, 129, and 135, amongst others.

The social benefits of housing delivery carry significant weight, though these are tempered by the fact a single dwelling would make a very modest contribution to addressing a notable shortfall. The scheme would also bring some limited economic benefits to the construction industry and thereafter through extra consumer spending in the local economy. The proposal would provide adaptable housing which is an identified local need. However, the most acute need in the local area is for smaller accommodation and this outweighs the aforementioned benefits.

Additionally, as it has not been shown how self-build housing could be secured, the support in paragraph 129 in the Framework for this different type of housing carries little weight. In that context, as I cannot be certain that the development would be delivered as self-build housing, it is not clear whether or not the requirements and possible benefits with respect to biodiversity net gain could be achieved. Carbon savings represent a moderate benefit, though overall, I attach limited weight to any such environmental gains. While at the lower end of the scale, there would still be some harm to the character and appearance of the area, which conflicts with paragraph 135 of the Framework. The lack of harm in respect of living conditions is a neutral matter.

It is acknowledged that the appeal site is in a well-connected location where future occupiers could walk to local services. However, the access arrangements have not been shown to be safe or suitable, which is in direct conflict with paragraph 115 of the Framework. This particular conflict is a matter I give significant weight to.

Overall, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. As such, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out within Framework paragraph 11.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 says development should be in accordance with the development plan ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’, and this is reaffirmed in the Framework. In this respect, I acknowledge the case law cited by the appellant which emphasises that the development plan should be considered as a whole.

I have concluded above that the proposal would conflict with the development plan. Furthermore, even when considered cumulatively, there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.