Appeal 6001771

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs is made by [name], [name] against North Somerset Council. That application is the subject of a separate decision.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on highway safety, and • The acceptability of the development with regard to flood risk.

The proposed development would be accessed directly off the A370 road. I observed this to be a busy section of highway which accommodated a high volume of traffic. In addition, the point of access is located along a section of road that is subject to a fifty miles per hour (mph) speed limit.

[name] am conscious that the access point already serves a development comprising of gypsy traveller pitches, the proposed scheme would result in a significant number of new pitches and there would be an increase in vehicle movements associated with these. The scheme includes no assessment of the existing traffic movements that are associated with the access point, or the number of movements that would be added by the proposed development. However, in my view the addition of 10 new pitches could result in a substantial number of additional traffic movements.

[name] note that there has been no objection from the highway authority, and that the report to the planning committee recommended that the access arrangements were acceptable, I consider that there is a lack of information to show that the access arrangements associated with the development would be safe.

I observed that at various other accesses along this stretch of road there were dedicated turning lanes within the highway, which enabled vehicles to be clear from the running flow of traffic whilst waiting to cross the flow of traffic from the opposite direction. There would be no such facility to accommodate vehicles turning right into the access to the proposed development. Given the position within a 50-mph speed limit, together with the high volume of traffic that uses this road, there is significant potential for waiting vehicles to cause obstruction to the highway with obvious risks to highway safety.

My view in this respect is reinforced by a previous appeal decision1 at this location, where an Inspector considered the acceptability of the access to accommodate a development consisting of storage containers. In that case, there was a lack of information showing that the number of traffic movements would be acceptable, as well as that a turning lane could be accommodated. [name] note the differing nature of the proposals in these cases, this nonetheless demonstrates that there has been concern over the number of traffic movements and the positioning of stationary vehicles, waiting to manoeuvre, within the highway.

My attention is drawn to an extant planning permission at the site for a pony trotting ring and it is contended that this use could attract additional traffic movements in any event. However, there is no meaningful comparison to show that the traffic that would be generated by this authorised use would be comparable to that generated by the development now proposed. Furthermore, there is no detail on the frequency of the use of the trotting ring to form a basis for comparison. Therefore, this matter does little to persuade me that the access arrangements would be safe.

When considering the specific appeal proposal, there is no substantive information before me to show that there would not be a detriment to highway safety, along a busy and fast-moving section of highway, as a result of the development.

Therefore, there is insufficient information to show that the development would not conflict with policy CS10 of the [name] (adopted January 2017 (the [name]) and policy DM24 of the [name] and Policies Plan (adopted July 2016). Together, and amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that development improves the transport network and does not prejudice highway safety.

Paragraph 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Policy CS3 of the [name] states that development within flood zones 2 and 3 will only be permitted 1 APP/D0121/W/17/3179037 where it has been demonstrated that it complies with the sequential (ST) and exceptions (ET) tests as set out in the Framework.

The site lies within flood zone 3a as defined by the Environment Agency flood maps, which is an area that is at a high probability of flooding. The development comprises gypsy traveller pitches which would accommodate mobile homes and as such the development falls within the highly vulnerable flood risk classification.

In respect of the ST, the appellant has produced their own ST which is limited only to the area of the existing gypsy traveller site adjacent to the appeal site. This is an overly restrictive approach and given the district wide shortage of gypsy traveller pitches, the ST should cover the area of the entire district. That being said, the council accepts that sites at a lower risk of flooding, which are available for gypsy traveller pitches, are extremely limited across the district. It also accepts as a matter of common ground that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are available at the present time. There is nothing before me that would lead me to disagree with this position. As such, despite the limited scope of the appellant’s ST, the ST is nonetheless passed in this case.

This then leads on to consideration of the ET. The Planning Practice Guidance outlines that for the ET to be passed it needs to demonstrate that: • development that has to be in a flood risk area will provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk; and • the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

The chief public benefit of the proposed development would be the contribution towards the provision of gypsy traveller accommodation, where there is already an acknowledged shortfall in provision. The Council’s Committee Report outlines that the most recent Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment was completed in June 2022, and this identified a need for 114 gypsy traveller pitches up to 2042. There has been some progress in providing pitches, but this has been small in comparison to the need. Furthermore, there are no present allocations for sites within the current development plan. On this basis, there is undisputedly a significant unmet need for sites and thus the contribution that the scheme would make would be a significant benefit.

The main part of the appeal site that would accommodate the residential units has been the subject of historic land raising and as a consequence would lie above the flood level in the defended 1 in 200-year (including an allowance for climate change) scenario. There would be some risk to the main part of the site after 2118, in the undefended scenario, but this would result from flood defences being breached or overtopped. However, given the distance of the site from the coast and the time inundation would take, there would be warning of such an event, and measures could be put in place to address this, reducing the risk substantially.

In my view therefore, the wider sustainability benefits of the development would outweigh the overall flood risk, and given the levels of the site, distance from the coast and that measures could be secured by planning condition, the development would be safe. There is no suggestion that the development would increase flood risk elsewhere. Accordingly, the ET is also passed in this case. The development would therefore accord with the provisions of the Framework and the development plan policies as outlined above.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable pitches and thus the provisions of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework are engaged.

[name] have found that the scheme would be acceptable in terms of flood risk matters, I have found that there is insufficient information before me to enable me to conclude that the development would not be harmful to highway safety at this location. I have had regard to the benefits of the scheme, most notably the contribution towards the provision of gypsy traveller pitches where there is an acknowledged shortfall, as set out above, together with the social benefits that this would deliver.

In this case, I find that the potential harm to highway safety, along what is a busy and well used highway, significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits. Thus, the balance falls against the proposal and the appeal should not be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

The development would provide accommodation for gypsy travellers, who share the protected characteristic of race for the purposes of the Public Sector Equality Duty under s149 of the Equality Act 2010. This sets out the requirement to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not. The harm that I have identified would outweigh the benefits in terms of advancing equality.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it.

Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.