Appeal 6002027

The appeal is dismissed.

An amended plan has been submitted, showing the garage of the first plot recessed to the side of the dwelling and with a bin collection area (plan ref 024- 262-125 rev B). This does not make substantive changes to the proposal. Furthermore, I am satisfied that my acceptance of the amended plan would not result in procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal and would not deprive any party from making representations, they may have wanted to make, based on the nature of the amendment. Consequently, I have accepted the amended plans.

The Council asserts, in its Statement of Case, that it was not sent the appellant’s [name] despite this being referred to in the appellant’s Statement. However, it is clear to me that the [name] is part of the appellant’s bundle of evidence and the Council and interested parties have had a reasonable opportunity to consider this Statement. As such, I have taken this into account in my consideration of the merits of the proposal without causing prejudice to any party.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, • The effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to visibility splays and safety of pedestrians, • The effect on the living conditions of future occupiers, with respect to provision of external garden spaces, • The effect on protected trees and whether the proposal would deliver the required [name], • The effect on protected species and • whether the design would accommodate suitable waste collection facilities.

[address] is a country lane, on the edge of Yate, within a semi-rural location. Much of the housing along the lane consists of small clusters of traditional rural dwellings within deep plots. Nonetheless, the surrounding area is subject to transition, with new development occurring in pockets, to the north and south of the appeal site. The site is a narrow and deep plot that appears to have been previously developed and was last used for storage. Nonetheless, it is now largely cleared with compacted gravel ground and enclosed by field hedge boundaries to its rear and sides. Due to its open but unkempt appearance, the site makes a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would consist of a linear row of housing arranged perpendicular to the lane. The layout includes two house types, one including large flat-roofed dormer windows to their rear roof plane. This form of development would be inconsistent with the appearance and arrangement of dwellings within similar width local plots, occupied by one of two dwellings.

The linear arrangement would be especially prominent as the adjacent fields are partially open to views from the highway, which would emphasise the proposed configuration. Furthermore, the rear elevations of the row, with four dwellings including large dormer windows, would be especially dominant in views by users of the lane. Such a view would emphasise the scale of development, which would appear at odds with the open surrounding area. Therefore, whilst such a layout may suit a more urban area, the site’s current setting would prevent the proposal being readily accommodated.

In design terms the layout includes a large area of hardstanding with tightly defined plots areas, creating a wide area of roadway without footpaths. This would present a poor-quality environment for future occupiers, with limited scope for landscape planting to soften views. Furthermore, the dwelling of the first plot would present a gable end to the lane, with the absence of side windows, presenting a stark addition to the street.

The Council considers that the scheme, due to its overall density and form, would result in overdevelopment. However, despite my concerns with respect to the effect of the scheme on the area’s character, the proposal would provide two-storey detached 4 bed housing, each within its own defined plot at a density of 35 dwellings per hectare. As such, the layout is relatively spacious and would not represent over-development of the site. Nonetheless, for the above reasons, the proposal would be out of character with the area.

Consequently, the proposal would not integrate well with its surroundings, includes poor design features and would harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with policy CS1 of the [site address] Local Plan: [name] [2013] (CS) and policy PSP1 of the [site address] Local Plan: policies, sites and Places Plan [2017] (LP) with respect to character and appearance. These seek, inter alia, for the siting, form and scale of development to respect and enhance the character and distinctiveness of the site and its context.

The proposed scheme would be accessed using the existing access onto [address], which is adjacent to the southern corner of the site. The access provides restricted visibility in both directions, especially to the south, due to the limited depth of the adjacent grass verge and the extent of roadside hedging.

Manual for Streets 2 [Department of Transport, 2010] explains that a visibility splay is determined based on an x-axis of 2.4 metres and the y-distance of the stopping sight distances (SSD) using the 85th percentile of vehicle speeds. The Highway Statement explains that the SSD to the north would be 39m and to the south 35m. However, the y-distance needed to achieve the required SSD, taking the recorded speeds into account, has not been annotated on the site’s access details.

The highway has a 40mph speed restriction and speed survey data, of the appellant’s [name], demonstrates that the 85th percentile of vehicles travel at speeds of around 29mph. The highway is straight and as such vehicles turning left and right into the access can be seen by following vehicles. The Highway Statement notes that emerging vehicles exiting views and looking south could be partially obscured by nearside hedging. Whilst this could be pruned back to improve visibility this hedge is not in the appellant’s ownership and could grow further, reducing visibility further. For views looking north, views would be clearer, raising reduced safety concerns. Furthermore, although the proposal would make use of an existing access, it does not follow that it would be acceptable for new development to use an access that would be unsafe to use.

It has not been demonstrated that the appellant has control over all land within a southern visibility splay, enabling motorists to exit onto the highway safely. The amended layout plan has relocated the garage, of the first plot, beyond sight lines for vehicles entering the site. This would improve safety around the access, has only a limited bearing on my main concerns. Therefore, it seems that the visibility splays available at the access, especially south looking, would not be appropriate.

In terms of pedestrian safety, [address] is absent footpaths, and largely unlit, with pedestrians having to walk in the roadway to reach [address]. [address] has footways and streetlights and is around 150m to the south of the site. This route would connect future occupiers to a community link bus service with onward connections to Yate and further on to connecting bus services. Nonetheless, [address] would be unattractive to pedestrians, being relatively narrow with minimal grass verges, providing limited refuge. [address] being within 800m of the site, access to it is via a route that would be unattractive to future pedestrians. In poor weather and poor visibility this route would be even less attractive to both pedestrians, especially elderly and children, and cyclists, creating poor and unsafe alternative travel options for future occupies.

Accordingly, based on limited visibility for emerging vehicles and unsafe access for pedestrians the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway and pedestrian safety. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with LP policy PSP11. This seeks, among other matters, for development to provide safe, accessible and convenient access for all mode trips arising to and from the proposal and for residential development to be located on safe, useable walking and cycling routes.

The proposed dwellings have separate private rear gardens. These are arranged as rectilinear spaces with patio areas and room for ornamental landscaping. Several houses would also have small front gardens, although two are shown to have no front gardens. As such, the general distribution and provision of garden areas is relatively consistent throughout the proposed layout.

However, LP policy PSP43 requires 4 bed dwellings, within residential development, to provide 70sq.m of private amenity space, these are framed as minimum external space standards. The accompanying text of this policy explains that the Council considers that access to adequate private outdoor space can play an important role in the physical and mental health and well-being of people. Two plots have an under provision of such garden space which are less than 60 sq.m.

Housing, especially larger units as proposed in this case, would be suitable to be accommodated by families with several children. On this basis it is especially important to ensure that suitable external, secure garden space is provided to meet the requirements of a family. The two units with sub-sized garden areas would not provide good quality family accommodation. The accompanying text of the policy states that the space standards include front and back gardens. However, front gardens where provided in this scheme would not be private and the two units with small rear gardens have no front gardens. Whilst these numerical requirements provide guidance only, the two plots on the western and southern boundaries would provide small, poor quality external space to the detriment of the living conditions of future occupiers.

As a result, the proposal would have an unsatisfactory external space provision, creating poor living conditions of future occupiers. Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with LP policy PSP43, the requirements of which are set out above.

The site is within an area subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Among other things, this prevents the cutting down, topping, lopping or uprooting of a tree. My observations on site confirm that there are no trees within the site. There are several self-seeded and low-quality trees within the boundary hedge line, with remaining vegetation consisting of poor-quality brambles and low scrub. As such, whilst within a protected area no substantive trees would be affected by the proposal, a view shared by the Council’s arborist. Accordingly, the Council has failed to adequately justify why a tree survey would be required.

The requirement for [name] (BNG) is sought under a statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the TCPA 1990 (as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021). Under the statutory framework for BNG, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition that the biodiversity gain objective is met. As such, unless specifically exempt, the development would be subject to the mandatory Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) condition, which requires the delivery of at least 10% BNG. This can be achieved through onsite biodiversity gains, registered offsite biodiversity gains or statutory biodiversity credits.

The appellant’s supporting information indicates that the scheme would result in the loss of 0.4 habitat units of low-quality grassland. The appellant states that the site consists of hardstanding and is absent biodiversity features. The appellant’s ecologist recommends that off-site ecology improvements should be secured, via the [name], for off-site offsetting to deliver the required 10% BNG.

The Planning Policy Guidance is clear that planning permission cannot be withheld on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective may not be met. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the development could achieve the required 10% BNG and that the Biodiversity Gain Plan condition, required by paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A of the TCPA 1990, would be capable of being successfully discharged through the provision of off-site units. As such, I am satisfied that off-site credits are available to enable the proposal to meet its BNG requirements of Schedule 7A of the Act.

In terms of protected trees, the proposal would not result in the loss of substantive trees and as such would comply with CS policy CS9 and LP policy PSP3. These seek, inter alia, for development to conserve and enhance the natural environment and minimise the loss of existing vegetation on site.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation [2017] lists protected animal species. The presence of such species must be identified through a competent survey, that accurately establishes a baseline against which the effects of a development proposal are to be judged, where ecological interests exist. Without a survey adequate mitigation measures cannot be determined or relied upon with any degree of certainty. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, where habitats and species may be affected, would be necessary to identify all relevant ecological constraints, any mitigation, additional survey requirements and opportunities to deliver ecological enhancement.

The appellant’s [name] suggests that there could be habitats on site. Although the site is devoid of trees and hedges, I observed it included some clusters of brambles, other vegetation and an earth mound that could provide ecological interest. Also, the site is within the open countryside and adjoins fields. These adjoining areas of land could provide connected foraging routes. In taking a precautionary approach, it would be necessary for a preliminary ecological appraisal to be undertaken to determine the effect of the proposal on matters of biodiversity interest.

Paragraph 99 of circular 06/2005 (biodiversity and geological conservation) confirms 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 a planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision.

As a result, the proposal fails to demonstrate that the proposal would not adversely affect protected species. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with LP policy CS9 and CS policy PSP19. These seek, among other matters, for development to conserve and enhance the natural environment and states that the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats will be refused unless the benefits of development clearly outweigh the loss.

The amended layout plan shows the addition of a waste collection point, adjacent to the lane. This means that future occupiers would need to haul their bins to a kerb-side collection point. This present one suitable solution for waste management on site. Alternatively, a bin collection area could be placed within a 30m distance for all residents and 25m distance of waste collection operatives, halfway within the site, which would adequately meet the guidance of MfS.

The waste collection area on the amended plan is shown to be of sufficient size to accommodate a wheely bin and small recycling bin and would operate relatively well for a kerbside collection. The final details, and location, of any communal bin collection area could be secured by condition. Furthermore, bin storage such as that shown at appendix 1 of the Design and [name] could be accommodated within rear gardens. Suitable rear garden access would be available via side passageways, enabling each plot to accommodate adequate waste collection facilities.

As such, the proposal would provide a suitable arrangement for waste collection. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with LP policy CS1 and the waste collection SPD, with respect to waste management. This seeks, among other matters, for development to provide sufficient space provision for the sorting and storing of waste materials in a convenient location.

The proposal would provide 8 new houses where the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of housing. Furthermore, the houses would include solar panels, supporting renewable energy projects and would make a small boost to the local economy through construction and post construction. However, these benefits would be of moderate weight only in favour of the proposal that would not outweigh the conflict found with the development plan.

The appeal is dismissed.