Appeal 6001770

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made against North Somerset Council by [name] (Quality Assured Cars Ltd). This application is the subject of a separate

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The site is a narrow, rectangular vacant parcel of land in the Weston Business Quarter. The site is accessed from [address] and is bordered by [address] SW (a food and drink innovation centre), a 4-storey hotel and a day nursery. To the rear the site is bordered by a hedgerow which runs along the western boundary of The Taxiway. On the opposite side of [address] is a vacant parcel of land and The Hive, a 3-storey office building. There is limited landscaping to the frontages of the hotel and day nursery. Nonetheless, [address] SW, and other nearby buildings in the business quarter including The Hive, the [name] public house and the [name] are surrounded by areas of landscaping, and the wider area is characterised by areas of open space, resulting in a verdant character and appearance to the area.

The site is within the ‘[name], a strategic development area in which policy CS30 of the [name] (2017) (CS) seeks to provide high-quality mixed-use, employment-led, environmentally sustainable development linked by a network of Green Infrastructure. The Weston Villages Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (SPD) sets out the area’s key development principles, one of which is the delivery of a strong network of green infrastructure, including an interconnected network of spaces and wildlife corridors surrounding and throughout developments.

The proposal seeks to use the site for car sales. A pitched roof building with 6 service bays is proposed along the site’s southeastern boundary. The tallest part of the building would incorporate a mezzanine floor with a glazed façade to the site frontage at [address]. The remainder of the site would comprise car parking.

The building’s modern form and glazed façade would be consistent with neighbouring built form at the [address] SW. The building would be set back from the road, consistent with the siting of neighbouring buildings, and the building’s height and massing would not dominate the site or surrounding built form.

Car parking would extend to the site boundaries with minimal separation to neighbouring buildings and limited landscaping to the site frontage. The extensive hardstanding coverage and the proliferation of cars which would be parked on it would result in a stark, over-intensive, visually incongruous form of development which would dominate the site, contrary to the Council’s vision for the development of the area set out in the SPD, one of the key components of which is the delivery of a strong network of green infrastructure. Given its limited extent, planting to the site frontage would fail to adequately soften the development or screen it in views from the street scene and neighbouring sites, in which the development would appear out of keeping with the character and appearance of the wider area.

The parameter plan for the outline application for the development of the area1, anticipated that the site would form part of the area’s highway layout, comprising a road running between 2 development parcels. Had the site been developed in accordance with the parameter plan it would have been necessary for the hedgerow to the rear boundary to be removed. Nonetheless, the parameter plan showed a road layout bordered by a sizeable green buffer to the north. Given the extent of the hardstanding and its proximity to neighbouring buildings, this green buffer would not be provided and there is no evidence that the level of landscaping overall would be improved or enhanced.

The proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with those aims of CS policies CS12 and CS30 and policy DM32 of the [name] and Policies Plan part 1 - Development Management Policies (2016) which seek to deliver high quality buildings and places which demonstrate sensitivity to local character and enhance the area. I also find conflict with the SPD, the aims of which are set out above.

Conflict also arises with Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework which sets out that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development.

It is stated that the site’s narrow, linear form, the presence of services and associated easements and the proximity to existing buildings and uses mean that it would not be suitable for the majority of employment uses. Be that as it may, it is still necessary to ensure that the development of the site accords with the 1 07/P1950/O development plan, including the place-making and area-specific policies with which I have found conflict. These matters do not justify a form of development which is harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

There is no compelling evidence that the development would be unviable or that it would fail to function if it were to incorporate more Green Infrastructure, or that planting, if it were appropriately sited, would be subject to damage from the movement of cars. In addition, even if it is the case that many of the Council’s employment allocations are undeveloped, it has not been suggested that the development could not be accommodated elsewhere in the district. These are not therefore matters that outweigh the development’s harms.

The proposal would make adequate provision for car parking, and the Council raised no objections on highway safety grounds. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to find otherwise. Nonetheless, compliance with the relevant development plan policies on these matters would be required in any case, therefore these matters weigh neutrally, rather than in favour of the proposal.

I have had regard to the benefits noted by the appellant in terms of the provision of an energy-efficient development on previously developed land within the settlement boundary, the economic benefits of job creation and the revenue generated by business rates in the long term. However, whilst these benefits attract weight in favour of the proposal, they would fail to overcome the identified harm to the character and appearance of the area. These matters do not therefore outweigh the conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be dismissed.